“The 40 Year Old Virgin Who Knocked Up Sarah Marshall and Felt Superbad About It” Movie Trailer (NSFW, via /Film)

I think I just vomited in my mouth, a little bit. In the vein of such terrible parody extravaganzas as Meet the Spartans, Epic Movie, and Disaster Movie, the film shown here is a frightening, shameless mishmash of the films of Judd Apatow: namely, The 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and Superbad. It appears director Craig Moss even hired lookalikes of all the actors of said films, but that doesn’t make this movie look any better. Watch the trailer and gape in awe at the sheer level of fail. According to IMDb, The 40 Year Old Virgin Who Knocked Up Sarah Marshall and Felt Superbad About It comes out next year. Thankfully (and fittingly), this will be released direct-to-DVD and soon relegated to the bargain bin in most stores, I suspect.

Per oggi torno io al posto di Paolo: diamo uno sguardo ai dati di ascolto statunitensi della serata di ieri 27 novembre 2009, in base alle cifre preliminari diffuse da Nielsen Media Research e pubblicate ogni pomeriggio da diversi siti web USA come Mediaweek e Hollywood Reporter.
In chiusura, alcune news e aggiornamenti di cast dal panorama televisivo statunitense che potranno anche essere approfonditi negli spazi settimanali “TV USA Gazette” e “TV USA Giorno per giorno”, ed un elenco degli episodi inediti di telefilm in onda questa sera negli Stati Uniti.
Per favore evitate nei commenti qualsiasi tipo di SPOILER sugli episodi dei telefilm citati in questo spazio!

ASCOLTI USA di venerdì 27 novembre 2009
Nel lungo week-end del Ringraziamento, in una serata di repliche delude l’inedito di “Ugly Betty” proposto su ABC, superato anche da due film in onda su FOX e NBC
Ecco la classifica degli spettatori totali dei cinque principali network statunitensi (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX e The CW): nella prima colonna è indicata l’audience in milioni di spettatori, nella seconda il rating e lo share nella fascia di pubblico 18-49 anni.

	AUDIENCE	RATING/ SHARE
	5,31	1,2/4
	4,79	1,4/4
	4,37	1,1/4
	3,74	1,1/4
	1,21	0,5/1

Ecco un elenco degli episodi inediti di serie e sit-com trasmessi ieri sera sui cinque network:

• ore 21.00 Ugly Betty 4×07 (ABC)

Di seguito entro più nel dettaglio dei programmi trasmessi, con una classifica per fascia oraria di trasmissione ordinata in base agli spettatori totalizzati.

ORE 20.00

1. Su CBS una replica della serie Ghost Whisperer – Presenze ha vinto l’ora con appena 5,63 milioni di spettatori (1,3/4).
2. Su FOX la replica del film d’animazione “Ice Age 2: The Meltdown” (2006, in Italia “L’era glaciale 2 – Il disgelo”) ha avuto 4,79 milioni di spettatori (1,4/4) tra le ore 20.00 e le 22.00.
3. Su NBC la replica del film commedia “The 40-Year Old Virgin” (2005, in Italia “40 anni vergine”, con Steve Carell) ha avuto 3,88 milioni di spettatori (1,2/4) tra le ore 20.00 e le 22.00.
4. Su ABC una puntata inedita del reality “Supernanny” ha ottenuto 3,48 milioni di spettatori (0,9/3).
5. Su CW una replica della nona stagione della serie Smallville ha ottenuto 1,58 milioni di spettatori (0,6/2).

ORE 21.00

1. Su CBS una replica della sesta stagione della serie Medium ha totalizzato 5,11 milioni di spettatori (1,2/4).
2. Su FOX è proseguita la replica del film d’animazione “Ice Age 2: The Meltdown”.
3. Su NBC è proseguita la replica del film commedia “The 40-Year Old Virgin”.
4. Su ABC il settimo episodio inedito della quarta stagione della serie Ugly Betty ha avuto appena 3,39 milioni di spettatori (0,9/3).
5. Su CW la replica della puntata clip-show di mercoledì sera del reality show “America’s Next Top Model” ha avuto 0,84 milioni di spettatori (0,4/1).

ORE 22.00

1. Su ABC il programma giornalistico “20/20″ ha avuto 6,25 milioni di spettatori (1,7/5).
2. Su CBS una replica della sesta ed ultima stagione della serie poliziesca Numb3rs ha ottenuto 5,19 milioni di spettatori (1,1/4).
3. Su NBC una puntata in replica del talk-show quotidiano “The Jay Leno Show” ha avuto 3,48 milioni di spettatori (1,0/3).

• I network si preparano al discorso di Obama del 1° dicembre
  I network ABC, CBS, NBC e FOX hanno deciso di trasmettere il discorso del presidente Barack Obama alla Nazione previsto per martedì 1° dicembre alle ore 20.00 e di durata 30 minuti.
  Vediamo le variazioni di ogni canale.

   

  • ABC programmerà un’intera ora dedicata al discorso e ai commenti giornalistici, rinviando a martedì 8 dicembre alla stessa ora i previsti mediometraggi animati “A Charlie Brown Christmas” (in replica) e “Disney’s Prep & Landing” (inedito). Nessuna variazione dalle 21.00 in poi, con i primi due episodi della nona stagione inedita di Scrubs e a seguire un episodio inedito di The Forgotten.
  • CBS sposta alle ore 20.30 la prevista replica di NCIS – Unità anticrimine, e al posto della replica di NCIS: Los Angeles prevista per le 21.00 programmerà alle 21.30 una replica della sit-com Due uomini e mezzo (episodio 6×14 “David Copperfield Slipped Me a Roofie”), e alle 22.00 trasmetterà il previsto speciale di moda “Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show”.
  • NBC trasmetterà un’intera ora dedicata al discorso e ai commenti successivi, e alle 21.00 manderà in onda la puntata (di solito in onda alle 20.00) del reality-game “The Biggest Loser”, che si concluderà alle 23.00 facendo saltare per la prima volta dall’avvio dello scorso settembre l’abituale “The Jay Leno Show” delle 22.00.
  • FOX ha deciso di trasmettere il discorso di Obama (mentre per i precedenti discorsi del 29 aprile, 22 luglio e 9 settembre aveva preferito saltare la trasmissione), e programmerà alle 20.30 il reality-game “So You Think You Can Dance” già previsto per le 20.00.
• USA Network cambia i suoi piani di trasmissione seriali da gennaio
  USA Network cambia radicalmente la trasmissione delle proprie serie originali a partire da gennaio: mentre fino ad ora le serate dedicate ai telefilm erano limitate alle serate di giovedì, venerdì e domenica, il canale si spinge ora in nuovi territori, e ha deciso che le serie White Collar, Duro a morire – Burn Notice e Psych andranno in onda ciascuno in una serata diversa.
  Più precisamente, White Collar partirà con la seconda metà della sua prima stagione inedita dal 19 gennaio ogni martedì alle 22.00; Burn Notice tornerà con la seconda metà della sua terza stagione inedita dal 21 gennaio ogni giovedì alle 22.00; Psych riprenderà la sua quarta stagione dal 27 gennaio ogni mercoledì alle 22.00.

DOMANI SERA IN TV NEGLI STATI UNITI…
Gli episodi inediti di serie e sit-com su network e canali cavo
Informazioni tratte dallo spazio “TV USA Giorno per giorno”.

Domenica 29 novembre 2009

• ore 20.00 I Simpson 21×07 (FOX)
• ore 20.30 The Cleveland Show 1×08 (FOX)
• ore 21.00  Desperate Housewives 6×09 (ABC), I Griffin 8×08 (FOX), Dexter 4×10 (Showtime)
• ore 21.30 American Dad 5×08 (FOX)
• ore 22.00  Brothers & Sisters 4×09 (ABC), Californication 3×10 (Showtime)

Holy frack, all of my favorite comedy actors in one movie?!

As if The Office and Little Miss Sunshine weren’t enough, this movie just consolidated my love for Steve Carell.

The one time that Seth Rogen and Adam Sandler, actually aren’t funny.

Famous and wealthy funnyman George Simmons (Adam Sandler) doesn’t give much thought to how he treats people until a doctor (Torsten Voges) delivers stunning health news, forcing George to reevaluate his priorities with a little help from aspiring stand-up comic Ira (Seth Rogen). Judd Apatow (Knocked Up) writes and directs this moving comedy that also stars Leslie Mann, Jonah Hill, Jason Schwartzman and Aubrey Plaza.

Funny People is a movie that I’ve wanted to see for a very long time now. I love Sandler, Rogen, and most of all Judd Apatow. And when I heard they we’re all goin to be in the same film together I could not believe myself. Finally I got the DVD and watched it and I’m quite glad.

This is Apatow’s third written & directed film, and in his last two showings (Knocked Up, The 40 Year-Old Virgin), he showed a great way of blending hilarious comedy with some moving drama. However, in this film he doesn’t show his best directing abilities. I felt like he was being more serious with this film, as this is probably one of his more serious and mature pieces of work cause it is about dieing. I just didn’t feel like this film hit every single point it could have. Apatow over-uses the slow-motion zoom in to show his characters being emotionally effected by something, and it really starts to become a little too obvious.

Still, his humor does hit the mark. I felt like there were a little bit too much of those jokes about boners and such, but really I wasn’t expecting much different. The humor blends in really well, where at points in the film they are actually making little jokes about death, and it lightens up the mood.

Apatow also does a great job of blending in fiction with non-fiction to evoke compelling realistic performances from the cast. I think this is a role of a lifetime for Sandler, because the character he plays is a goofy comedian he gets to indulge in the zany side of his comedy, but also he gets to play the characters darker parts and he does a fantastic job at it. Seth Rogen is really great in this film as he isn’t playing the usual Seth Rogen you see in every other film, he is actually more serious and believable as a very awkward and nerdy geek who is just trying to be funny. Surprisingly, the funniest out of this whole cast has got to be Eric Bana. Yes, out of a cast filled with Jonah Hill, Adam Sandler, and Seth Rogen The Hulk ends up becoming the funniest guy. He comes late in  the film but plays this stereotypical macho-man guy and really gives this film the extra laughs it deserves.

There are two films in Funny People, one about Sandler and Rogen, and the other about Sandler and Leslie Mann. It’s less of a buy one get one free deal, as much as it is a buy one and get one you really didn’t ask for. The latter part didn’t feel like it was supposed to be put in the film, and just added on to less comedy and more drama.

Consensus: Funny People is not Apatow’s best, but still has a great blending of comedy and drama, with some realistic performances. I just felt like this was two movies rolled into one, and lack of cohesiveness between the two separate stories is what stops it from being a great movie.

8/10=Matinee!!!!!

There is a fundamental problem with the new* Judd Apatow movie, ‘Funny People‘: None of the people in the movie are actually funny. They talk about the jokes they are writing and we see the writing process, but all of the jokes told on stage are punctuated with mild laughter, which is all this movie ultimately gets as well.

There is some heart and some humor here, but Apatow has gone for broke and fallen overboard. ‘The 40 Year Old Virgin’ was a slim 116 minutes, and while ‘Knocked Up’ trickled over two hours, it was bearable. ‘Funny People’ is a 100 minute movie stretched so far that by the end I was just hoping George Simmons would get hit by a freakin’ bus.

The problem here is that the film puts heart over humor, and Apatow and his actors have a lot of trouble pulling it off. ‘Virgin’ and ‘Knocked Up’ were funny and ended up having a heart under the vulgarity. ‘Funny People’ tries to be serious business, with the disease and the old love and the new family, and we don’t really care enough about the characters to think anything they do is funny. The relationship between George and his old lover Laura (Leslie Mann) is forced in an awkward scene where he regrets cheating on her. Maybe this would work if the parallel scene where Ira (Seth Rogen) watches the kids was amusing, but it isn’t. Seth Rogen is usually insufferable, but he did some good work in this movie. Too his source material wasn’t better.

Don’t get me started on Jonah Hill. This kid has no business being in any movie and is pretty easily the worst component of anything he touches. Yet Judd Apatow loves him, so he keeps popping up.

‘Funny People’ is completely underwhelming. I give this advice often about many new movies where the cardinal people have done better work: Don’t waste your time–watch ‘The 40 Year Old Virgin’ again.

* Since I am currently in South Korea, sometimes it takes me longer than usual to see movies. I try to keep up to date, but there is only so much I can do.

November is a time of year to ruminate on all the things that we’re thankful for, and as we close in on the end of 2009, I find myself with a list containing innumerable pieces of my life that I’m grateful of. I have a wonderful fiancée with whom I have a fulfilling relationship; I have a good home which I share with her and our two mischievous cats. I’ve got friends who care about me and family that loves me. And in our uncertain job market, I have a solid and stable job, which in turn lends me the financial stability that so many people in our country have been bereft of. In short, I’m happy and comfortable and secure; if that’s not reason enough to be thankful, I don’t know what is.

But of course, you don’t read this blog because you’re terribly interested in how great my life is; this is a blog about movies, and that’s ostensibly what you’re here for. You see, while thinking about those personal elements of my life, I got to thinking about my passion for the cinema, which in turn got me reflecting on the films that I’m thankful for, the movies that have influenced or affected my love for all things cinematic directly or in more clandestine ways. And so, keeping with the theme of this month’s holiday, I wound up putting together a list of ten such films for your reading pleasure.

As a note, this is not supplementary reading for my top ten list; it’s also not a generic “top X most influential films” list, though in some cases it is precisely the influence of the film in question that I appreciate. That appreciation will only be examined on a personal level– as much as some of these movies have had broad and far-reaching impact on cinema as a whole, here I’m only interested in how they have effected films that have specific significance to me. These aren’t necessarily the movies that I could watch from start to finish any day of the week, any time of day, but rather the movies that helped shape and change my perception of cinema. So with that in mind, please enjoy!

Shiri/Swiri– Shiri (spelled Swiri inside Korea) is often credited as being the film that jump-started the Korean New Wave back in 1999. While under even distant examination this isn’t totally the case, Shiri‘’s success did much to cause a resurgence in interest toward Korean cinema; as the film became an instant smash, local companies became more willing to risk their money on genre films with larger budgets, and the sales of Korean films overseas increased. On its own it’s a tight and energetic espionage thriller about a North Korean terrorist plot to target and destroy South Korean landmarks, but in the broader context of South Korean cinema, Shiri’s existence may largely be responsible for the boom the SK film industry has enjoyed since its release– and therefore, films like Oldboy might never have been made without it.

Watchmen– I wasn’t one hundred percent enthused by Zack Snyder’s adaptation of Alan Moore’s classic graphic novel (read my review here), but it’s hard for me not to crack an appreciative smile when I sit back and think about it in retrospect. Watchmen is a crackling, pulsing, living and breathing piece of glorious pop-art, flawed for certain but also filled with crackling performances and eye-popping attention to detail. It’s also a challenge to other super hero movies to attempt to achieve similar faithfulness to their source material. Watchmen is also the kind of against-the-mainstream property that one would never expect a major studio to back, and yet that’s precisely what Warner Brothers did. It wasn’t a box office winner, but it also hasn’t added up to a total failure for the studio just yet (thanks to the ancillary market), and if anything its existence should give the movie geeks faith in the studios; if Watchmen can get made, anything can get made. But most of all, even if the end result wasn’t as good as it should have been, I’m just happy that someone had the chutzpah to even attempt to translate this “unadaptable” story to the big screen.

The 40 Year Old Virgin– The Judd Apatow train got its start with the TV series Freaks and Geeks, but it picked up the most steam upon the release of this 2005 hit comedy. Since then, it’s helped shape the face of American comedy, leading films to place greater emphasis on character and plot development instead of leaving those elements to the wayside in favor of more fart jokes; it’s this focus on heart and story in addition to belly laughs (which leads to more robust and fulfilling comedies) that makes Virgin’s existence so richly deserving of our gratitude. Of course, no one does it better than the master himself; the best comedies of the last half a decade have come out of the Apatow camp, and no imitators have come close to replicating what makes those films great. (Though amusingly enough, many of those seeming imitators are actually part of the Apatow family, as Judd’s arm has grown so long that he has his hands in untold numbers of contemporary comedies.) And aside from being a comedy game-changer, Virgin is responsible for helping establish Steve Carell’s presence as a leading man, as well as introducing actors like Romany Malco and Seth Rogen to wider audiences; if that’s not enough reason to tip your hat to it, then I don’t know what is.

Kikujiro–  From my experience, filmmakers like Japanese auteur Takeshi Kitano get an unfair rap in the US for working in very narrow and specific genres of cinema. Here, Kitano is popularly thought of as a director of crime thrillers, and while I can understand why– much of his creative output that has reached the States consists of gangster films like Brother, Sonatine, and Hana-bi– the reputation is grossly unjust given his comedic roots and surprising penchant for the poignant. During my years in college, I found myself defending Kitano against just such accusations from my friend; the argument ended when I popped Kitano’s 1999 film Kikujiro in my DVD player. I’ll always be grateful  for this film’s existence as a counter-point against the idea that Kitano, as a filmmaker, knows only violence; here, he tells a story that’s artful and moving and entirely relatable despite examining its themes through a specific cultural lens. The movie follows the journey of a young boy as he travels across Japan to find his mother; Kitano plays the gruff, curmudgeonly eponymous character who accompanies the child on his quest. It’s a colorful and beautifully shot movie that’s perhaps more touching than Kitano’s better-known gangster films are violent, a road movie that closely explores isolation and alienation in Japanese society.

Shaun of the Dead– As a foreign property, Shaun of the Dead introduced me (and many, many others) to a bevy of English talent: Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg, Jessica Hynes and Nick Frost. Wright, Hynes, and Pegg had worked together prior to Shaun on the wonderful TV series, Spaced, while Frost had starred on his program Danger! 5000 Volts! (wherein he advised his audience on how to best handle volcanic eruptions and hippo attacks). For this alone, I’m indebted to the film; the fact that it not only schooled me on these fantastic talents but also surprised me by turning out to be one of the best zombie movies of all time was icing on the cake. Or perhaps it’s the other way around? Either way, Shaun of the Dead makes up for decades of terrible imitations and blatant rip-offs of the films of Romero and Fulci and also stands up to them in sheer quality (I honestly believe that Shaun’s script might be one of the best scripts written in the last decade). The film’s secret to success? Shaun can be described as a zombie parody or an homage to the films of the greats, but the truth is that it eschews the chance to be cute, coy, and tongue-in-cheek and instead chooses to stand on its own as an honest-to-God zombie movie filled with laughter, fantastic effects and make-up, and a whole lot of heart. Like Virgin (both films are, after all, tastemakers in their respective genres), many films have tried to imitate what makes Shaun work, and none have succeeded; it’s a wholly unique film, something that can’t be replicated, and that makes it truly special and worthy of adulation.

***

What films are you thankful for? What are the movies that you appreciate in a broader context outside of their individual quality? Feel free to share your thoughts here. Enjoy the season, everyone!

MORRISON: as 'Mr Schuester'

LYNCH: as not-so-sweet Sue

It seemed like they came out of nowhere, this tall, lanky high school teacher and the razor-tongued athletic coach determined to be his nemesis. If they’d been major players (or even minor ones) on earlier TV shows, I’d obviously missed those series. And even after Glee made its auspicious and, yes, spectacular debut as a test pilot, no one ever said, “Oh you know him, he’s the guy from Law & Criminals: Baltimore.” Or anything even remotely like that. We saw him in action. Then we saw her in action. And then we went wow! — who are these people?

MORRISON: in South Pacific

Apparently we were looking for answers in all the wrong places. We should have been looking to Broadway. Matthew Morrison, who plays Will Schuester, the Spanish teacher who decides to try to resuscitate the high school glee club, is an accomplished song and dance man who co-starred in the sensational still-running Lincoln Center revival of South Pacific, nightly revisiting such Rodgers & Hammerstein classics as I Have Dreamed and Carefully Taught.
And when he isn’t playing the beleaguered high school teacher in the runaway hit of this TV season, he’s working with his South Pacific director Bartlett Sher on developing a musical version of Pedro Almodovar’s Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown.

LYNCH: with Streep in Julie & Julia

(Who knew???)
We sure knew he could sing and dance, however — and stay in character — after we saw him ‘teach’ his irresistible Glee club misfits how to sell a song. (Still don’t know what I’m talking about? Just click here.)

As for the outrageously funny Jane Lynch — frankly, and i mean candidly: Where Have I Been? She’s been a popular recurring multi-episode player on such long-running hit series as Boston Legal, Criminal Minds, The ‘L’ Word and Two And A Half Men. Comedy

GLEE: tonight at 9 pm

aficonados will tell you in a heartbeat that she performed all her own singing and guitar playing in A Mighty Wind, and that she made them scream with laughter when she appeared with Steve Carrell in his breakthrough film The 40 Year Old Virgin. (Morrison also has on-screen history with Carrell. He played the cop that wouldn’t get off his case in Dan In Real Life.) What many of her fans don’t realize, however, is that Lynch is currently on screen with Meryl Streep, playing the small but key role of Julia Child’s sister in Julie & Julia. And that she opens off-Broadway with Tyne Daly tonight — yes, tonight — as part of the rotating all-female cast of the new Nora & Delia Ephron opus, Love, Loss And What I Wore. So she continues in very good company, on stage and screens.

MORRISON: Broadway baby

LYNCH: TV veteran

So does Glee. Two weeks ago, barely into the run of the series, Glee cast recordings accounted for 10 spots on the iTunes list of top 200 downloaded songs and four places on the Billboard Hot 100 for the week. The top-selling Glee cast recordings included two mash-ups created for the series — one of Bon Jovi’s “It’s My Life” and Usher’s “Confessions Part II,” and the other of Beyoncé’s “Halo” and “Walking on Sunshine,” by Katrina and the Waves. And more sales are in the offing. On Nov. 3 Columbia Records and 20th Century Fox Television will release Glee: The Music, Volume 1, the first in what is planned as a series of soundtrack albums. And last week the Fox series made more headlines when NBC reneged on its invitation to have the Glee cast perform during the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, which it broadcasts. So now the Glee cast will perform during the World Series, singing the national anthem in either Los Angeles or Philadelphia, depending on the outcome of the playoffs, during game three of the series, which is telecast by Fox.

Still wondering what all the fuss is about? To catch up with the pilot that started it all, just click here. To catch a new episode, tune in tonight at 9 pm to Fox or Global. And enjoy!

TOMORROW:

More star-studded news and views

from Vanessa Williams, Lily Tomlin and more.

-/-

70 The Glen Miller Story

I’m a big fan of Jimmy Stewart and I love big band & jazz music, so this movie provides an irresistible combo. Stewart is quite the Miller doppelganger, which I assume is a prime reason he was cast in the film. June Allyson provides perky support as Miller’s wife, and a pre-MASH Harry Morgan plays Miller’s best buddy. The story follows Glen Miller from his struggling musician days through his rise to fame to his untimely demise in a presumed plane crash during World War II. I decided to watch this movie years ago simply because I had become a fan of Stewart and wanted to see as many of his films as possible. But the movie made me a Glenn Miller fan and I continue to enjoy his music immensely.

69 The Shrek Trilogy

I have to admit…I didn’t see any Shrek films until all three were already out and available on video, so I’m fairly new to the Shrek universe. I didn’t bother with them at first because I assumed they were kiddie films. However, I decided to watch one on television a few years back and have since seen all three. I was both right and wrong in my original assessment. They are undoubtedly geared toward an demographic far younger than I, but on the other hand sometimes it’s okay to temporarily feel like a kid again. For anyone unfamiliar (which I assume would only be folks who, like me, are both single and childless because anyone with children is surely familiar with Shrek), this animated trilogy follows the adventures of a surly but loveable ogre, his talking donkey sidekick, and the ogre’s lady love. There are a host of other characters. Lending their considerable voice talents to the three films are an all star team of folks such as Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Antonio Banderas, Cameron Diaz, John Lithgow, Justin Timberlake, John Cleese, Rupert Everett, and many more. Most of the visual humor and jokes in the series parody well known fairy tales, which is a huge part of the charm for me…I love parodies and who doesn’t appreciate childhood fairy tales. The animation is computer generated, which far exceeds the animation most of us grew up with. These movies need to be viewed in high definition to really get the full effect.

68 The Greatest Show On Earth

Once again my favorite actor Jimmy Stewart is paired with something cool. This time it’s the circus. I think this is one of Stewart’s best performances. It is certainly low key and subtle, as he spends the entire film in clown makeup. The bigger draw for most people, I suppose, would be Charlton Heston in one of his finest performances as well. Heston kind of became a sad parody of himself in the latter part of his career, but this is one of his earlier movies and he shows why he was once one of the top box office attractions in the world. Directed by famed auteur Cecil B. Demille (I’m ready for my close-up…indeed), the story follows the Ringling Brothers/Barnum & Bailey Circus as it travels from town to town. We meet several of the performers and become involved in their lives behind the big top, so to speak. That behind the scenes view reveals a lot of romance, intrigue, drama, and tragedy. Basically it’s a soap opera set at the circus. Demille is known for his lavish, over-the-top, extravagant productions, and he doesn’t disappoint with The Greatest Show On Earth. Like so many beloved memories of yesteryear, the circus has almost slipped into being a remnant from a bygone era. Sure they are still around, but they are no longer an event. Even when I was a kid not that long ago it was a big deal when the circus came to town. Nowadays kids are into their video games and computers and iPods and couldn’t possibly care less about the circus. But watch this movie and you will be reminded of just how extraordinary it used to be.

67 Ocean’s 13

In 2001 George Clooney, Matt Damon, and Brad Pitt teamed up to remake the 1960 Rat Pack romp Ocean’s 11, about robbing a Vegas casino. The remake was a smashing success and unlike the original spawned sequels. The first movie will be dealt with later in this list. The second movie, Ocean’s 12, was poorly written and quite forgettable. The third movie was Ocean’s 13, and it’s a nice rebound from its disappointing predecessor. This time the gang returns to Las Vegas and they don’t actually rob a casino as much as they…turn the odds in their favor through uniquely nefarious means. The bad guy is played by Al Pacino, which automatically makes this a must see. As with the other Ocean’s films, don’t try to interject logic or make sense out of the proceedings. This is pure popcorn cinema, escapism at its best.

66 The Frat Pack Three Pak (Anchorman, The 40 Year Old Virgin, & Wedding Crashers)

Anyone who grew up in the 80’s is familiar with The Brat Pack (Molly Ringwald, Emilio Estevez, Judd Nelson, Andrew McCarthy, Rob Lowe, and a few others). And while imitation is the sincerest form of flattery I would not necessarily call the modern Frat Pack imitators. The only similarity is the name homage, which was itself a takeoff on the 1960’s Rat Pack of Frank Sinatra and his pallies. The Frat Pack is generally thought to be comprised of Vince Vaughn, Ben Stiller, Will Ferrell, Owen and Luke Wilson, Steve Carell, Jack Black, Paul Rudd, and Seth Rogen. Some combination of those actors has starred in a host of films together with a wide array of results. Zoolander and Starsky & Hutch…not so good. Old School and Blades of Glory…much better. But for me three Frat Pack films stand head and shoulders above the crowd and have stood up to numerous repeated viewings. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy stars Ferrell with Carell and Rudd in very amusing supporting roles. Vaughn, Stiller, Black, Rogen and Luke Wilson all have brief cameos. Ferrell plays an over-the-top misogynistic 70’s news anchor whose world is turned upside down when he’s forced to share the anchor desk with a woman. Anchorman is among the most quotable movies of the past two decades and is just pointless yet harmless fun. The 40 Year Old Virgin stars Carell as the titular character, with Rogen and Rudd in vital supporting roles that really make this film work. It’s hilarious but sweet, with more quotable dialogue and a few really memorable scenes. I really like Rudd in this film. Wedding Crashers, starring Vaughn and Owen Wilson, is a movie I really like but probably not as much as some people. I don’t think it’s really any better than any other Frat Pack film, which doesn’t mean anything negative it just means my praise seems to not rise to outlandish and undeserved peaks of hyperbole. Will Ferrell makes possibly one of the best cameos of all time, and to say that Rachel McAdams (who I someday intend to make my bride) is quite fetching may be one of the biggest understatements I could conceive. Plus there’s Christopher Walken and that’s just the cherry on top.

So, I haven’t blogged for a few days. Not out of laziness, it’s just that there wasn’t anything to write about. I watched Surrogates just the other day, and it turned out to be another one of those cheesy, teenage type, predictable movies. The story was somewhat interesting, but it wasn’t mature enough to challenge the audience. You normally notice this kind of thing when you are sitting in a movie theater with a bunch of idiots that talk and make noises every time something happens in the movie. The fact that idiots enjoy the stuff, says a lot about the movie. Although, I don’t wanna be too harsh on the movie because it wasn’t as bad as movies like Spiderman (all 3) or Iron Man…

My philosophy on movies is that, if a product, a movie is of great quality, I’m a fan regardless of its genre (in most cases). So, if I’m watching a comedy that’s supposed to be goofy and dumb, it better deliver. Or if a movie is supposed to be smart and cutting edge, it better be like that or else what’s the point of watching something fake?? I guess, what ruins a movie for me is that I understand how Hollywood works. Some genre, topic, actors or whatever becomes the hot new thing and the movie studios start throwing money at it. Like in the past few years, these super hero type movies have had some success, so now you see all kinds of super hero crap. Some are good, most are shit. Or a movie comes out like “the 40 year old virgin” and has a little success, a good movie. Then, every single one of the actors in that movie become famous and start making other shitty movies that are supposed to be funny, but they really aren’t. The only funny parts of such movies are found in their previews and the rest is just crap. The thing is, movies are works of art. What makes a great painting great is the fact that the painter has put a lot of hard work and his soul into that piece of art. The painter doesn’t do it for the money in most cases. A lot of great artists are known to be poor and become famous after their death. A movie loses its value when it’s made for the sole purpose of making money and lacks those artistic attributes. Same thing is true for music, when an artist releases shit just to stay on top charts, you can tell by the quality of their music. Their shit gets hot for a few weeks, and then goes away for good. At the same time, there is music out there that’s been around since 70’s, 80’s, or 90’s and still holds its power to move people.

Network Russian Roulette

Another season, another crapshoot. But if you’re going to find the pearl, you gotta shuck the oysters. Here’s my first impressions on five shows making their debut this fall, as well as five shows trying to avoid that sophomore slump:

 And yes, there might be spoilers below.

The freshmen

Community…Joel McHale, like the hosts of The Soup that preceded him, has charisma. Hard to tell where this one is going with so many characters getting introduced so quickly, but McHale plays his selfish user somewhere between Sgt. Bilko and a young Chevy Chase. Problem is, the old Chevy Chase is in the cast, and in the first week he already dropped the name-fumbling gag from Caddyshack and the awkward food pantomime John Belushi used in Animal House. If Chase is used sparingly, and they let McHale spar more with the hilarious John Oliver (who I hope will be a recurring character), this could work. LINK

Eastwick…They don’t know Jack. if they did, they would have realized that most remakes suck, and remakes of Jack Nicholson vehicles really suck. It was a stupid movie with Jack; imagine how abysmal it is dumbed down for network television sans Sir Satan. This should be dead by Christmas. LINK

Flash Forward…Hands-down the most ambitious and amazing looking pilot; the debut episode looked like a feature film. The central concept is a good one, and the strong performances of a solid cast already have me invested in a few of them. It’s odd that despite a global catastrophe most of the characters seem to have wrapped their head around this global mystery, accepting the chaos with a little better demeanor than I would have, but an hour of people screaming “what the hell??” probably doesn’t make good television. Conspiracy theory, science fiction, time travel, dreams and alternate reality. I’m down. LINK.

Glee…Yes, every character is a stereotype (jock, nerd, bully, brainiac chick, earnest teacher, dysfunctional athletic director, etc.). I don’t care. This is laugh-out-loud funny, the songs are phenomenal, and even though Jane Lynch is playing the same character she usually does – here a cross between her oddballs from The 40 Year Old Virgin and Role Models – she still steals every scene she’s in. Hopefully they don’t try to make it melodramatic as well. Either way, I cannot believe this is from the same guy who created Nip/Tuck – that’s like Barbara Walters doing porn. In your face, High School Musical! LINK

Modern Family…This is like watching a nervous juggler; if he can keep all those balls in the air it will be an amazing feat and perhaps even something worth talking about. But he might have tossed too many up at once, and it’s possible he’s going to collapse under a hail of projectiles. I love Ed O’Neill, and Ty Burrell shows promise as a cringeworthy “cool Dad”, but they were already going for the cheap, broad laughs in the pilot. Must admit I laughed at a couple of them, but with so many characters, the writing will have to be very strong or this is toast.   LINK

The sophomores

Castle…Looks like it’s picking up right where it left off, and if Bones continues to waste its time on romantic subplots between the secondary characters, this will be the go-to show for people who want a little light banter and sizzle with their crime drama. The leads have killer chemistry, the cases are plausible and  interesting enough to hold their own, the daughter might be the most realistic teenager on television, and Nathan Fillion is a star. LINK

Dollhouse…If any other team was behind this show, I think the network would have deep-sixed it after the first season. But Joss Whedon not only has proven himself, even the shows of his that have been cancelled have continued to mesmerize large fanbases. Regardless, it doesn’t look like a concept with a master plan at this point, it seems as if they’re trying things out to see what sticks. He’s got to focus this one better or only the fanboys will be left, because Friday night is a tough sell. LINK

Fringe…Mindblower of a final episode last season, the kind of cliff-hanger that people talk about all summer. Solid cast, complex but not difficult plot (if you pay attention), and if you can accept the premise, you can be richly rewarded. Great chemistry between the leads and main supporting characters with some fascinating oddballs in the mix. If you liked The X-Files for either the linear mysteries or the Mulder/Scully relationship, you’ll love Fringe. LINK

Parks and Recreation…I’m really pulling for this one, although I can understand if people’s patience wears thin. The cast is amiable and there’s good situational dialogue, but the amount of people who can identify with this workplace – as opposed to The Office, which it’s modeled after – might not be enough to make this water-cooler material. Amy Poehler’s character is a dolt with heart and she nails it, and the supporting cast is good, with Aziz Ansari a standout. Hiring Louis CK as the small town cop was a stroke of genius; he might just save the show. LINK

Sons of Anarchy…Obviously not for everybody, but this biker drama is yet another reason FX has become the best channel on television. Somehow they pepper in a little humor among the violence and criminal activity, and the performances are so universally excellent (Kim Coates is absolutely twisted, and Katey Sagal was robbed of an Emmy) that even the guest stars need to bring their A-game. This season’s first episode brought Henry Rollins and a quietly demonic Adam Arkin to the table and proved the show already took it up a notch. LINK

There's always this option...

Paul Rudd is fast becoming one of my favourite actors.

Films such as Role Models, The 40 Year Old Virgin, Anchorman and even old skool classic Clueless have seen him cement the kind of reputation that I will base seeing a film on.

His run of great films continues with ‘I Love You, Man’ – the most accurate description of which was the term ‘Bromance’ that was coined by someone when the movie hit screens earlier this year.

This film is essentially a love story. Man looks for companion, takes them on dates until he finds one then gets to know them better. Except both characters are men

Peter Klaven (Rudd) gets engaged to his girlfriend and then realises he doesn’t have a male friend who can be his best man.

He sets about trying to find a friend he can ask before he gets married and after some memorable encounters ends up befriending Sydney Fyfe (Jason Segel).

The film plays out around their new found friendship but is treated like a love story of sorts, which just adds to the comedy value.

I won’t spoil anything here but as you can imagine there are plenty of laughs in the various situations they end up in and the way that their relationship takes off.

The two leading men have such a great chemistry that you can’t help but love them despite their faults.

I Love You, Man is a great film that plays on our pre-conceived notions of rom-com movies and flips them 180 degrees.

Well recommended.

Rating: 9/10

Having not gotten around to posting part three of my NBA series I will instead steer off course and present to you a trailer of a new film coming out. Well it actually won’t be a typical trailer since I will be describing it to you through words. You know what words are right? They’re the things you don’t use when you are texting.

So here it is the trailer for the new movie: Crazy Shit Happening

The following preview has been approved for all audiences by the MPAA.

(Dark and mysterious music is playing while an image of a man looking at himself in the mirror is displayed.)

Obligatory narrator describing the life of the man in front of the mirror.

Narrator: For as long as he can remember Jim has had no memory.

(Cut to scene where Jim is at a restaurant ordering food)

Jim: I’ll have a burger with a side of coleslaw.

Waitress: And what would you like to drink?

Jim: I’ll have a burger with a side of coleslaw.

(A loud thunderclap rings as the scene is melted away with blood)

Narrator: But what Jim doesn’t know is that some guys will take advantage of anything.

(Cut to scene where Jim and three guys who are probably tools are standing with an unoriginal barbie doll like girl)

Girl: Do you want to see me naked?

Jim: Yes, you have nice (zany sound effect).

Girl: Okay, but I’ll have to see you three naked.

Jim: Yes, you have nice (zany sound effect).

Cue: Classic rock song that has been played too many times (Panama by Van Halen, Working for the Weekend by Loverboy, etc.)

Narrator: Now Jim will meet a group of guys who likely won’t remember the night either.

Guy 1: Hey give me two bucks if I chug this beer?

Guy 2: No way man I don’t want puke all over the coach.

Guy 1: I’m doing it anyway!

Guy 3: There’s beer in his glass and he’s drinking it!

Cue: Another banal classic rock song.

(Montage featuring Jim flying a hang glider, climbing a pyramid, wrestling a panda)

(Jim and the Guys 1-3 are now all together)

Jim: Why are we in a plane?

Guy 1: Have you ever chugged a beer while skydiving?

Jim: Where’s the stewardess?

Guy 2: She’s right out that door and she wants to suck your (yet another zany sound effect).

Jim: Okay.

(Jim falls out of the plane)

(Montage featuring Jim and the three Guys playing bingo at a nursing home, piloting a zeppelin, judging a bikini contest)

(New scene where Jim and Guys 1-3 are in a bar drunk)

Guy 2 (Drunk): I’ve have seen a celebrity and I have made love to her.

Guy 3: No way man who?

Guy 2: Jessica Alba.

Guy 1: No way?

(Jessica Alba walks past)

Guy 2: Hey Jessica you want my (omg! another sound effect!).

(Alba slaps Guy 2 on the face)

(Guys 1-3 and Jim are drunk at a petting zoo)

Zoo worker: Timmy needs some milk but we’re all out!

Guy 3: Who’s Timmy?

Zoo worker: A baby llama.

Guy 1 (drunk): I’ll pay Tina a visit.

(Cut to scene where Guys 2 and 3 and Jim are watching in Guy 1 in amazement. The camera pulls back and it is implied but not shown that Guy 1 is breast feeding the llama)

Jim: I’ve always wondered why guys had nipples.

(Remember that the cliched rock music is still playing!)

(But now a change as the music gets gentle)

Narrator: But sometimes a night doesn’t need memory for love to occur.

(Jessica Alba and Jim are at the top of the Eiffel Tower)

Jessica Alba: So you can’t remember anything?

Jim: No.

Alba: That must be really hard.

Jim: You’re pretty.

Alba: You’re so sweet.

(Predictable kiss)

Narrator: No matter what happens tomorrow there will always be tonight.

(The music gets louder and louder now as a final montage is played with has quick scene jumps of scenes featuring the three Guys and Jim running with the bulls in Spain, drinking tea in jail with prisoners, you get the idea…)

(Suddenly everything gets quiet as we see Guys 1-3 and Jim in a field of grass)

Guy 3: I got a feeling this night’s going to be pretty normal.

(Shot of the four guys from behind as a cow flies over their heads. Guys look up in astonishment)

Guy 1: Moo?

(Loud ending trailer sound as a few text screens come up)

Text Screen 1: From the makers of Drunk in School, Drunk in College, Drunk in College 2, and Drunk on the Job comes…

(Another loud noise)

Crazy Shit Happening

Released on 10/23/09

Rated R

Hello World!!!

Guess what y’all?! It’s my second installment of “Your Turn,” through which people with interesting insights and views post THEIR stories on my blog…I’ve had this post for over a month now and because of my busy schedule and good ole-fashioned procrastination, I neglected to get this post up…Sooo here goes…Calling all virgins out there? Can you hear me? Raise your hands if you are a virgin! I can’t see anybody of course as I’m sitting at my computer, but I imagine there are very few virgins out there past the age of 22 or so…And if you are a Christian and have been since you were a teenager, you are supposed to be one according to the Bible’s views on premarital sex…But as someone who grew up in the church and have known others who have grown up in the church, I know there are very few out there…

But I do know One…And on the condition of anonymity, I convinced him to share his views on being a virgin well into his adulthood…and for the record, he’s not an ogre…he’s actually quite handsome, but I will let him tell you all about it in his own words…

 She was a walking rap video, with proportions so ideal that they seemed surreal. A living and breathing fantasy, her slim waist, curvaceous hips and perfect planetary backside made me shake my head each time I looked her way…

“Concentrate on her eyes…,” I reminded myself as she lay beside me, attentively waiting for the announcement that I promised to make. “Uhhh,” I uttered as I cleared my throat.

“When…when I was 13 years old, that’s when I became a Christian…”

“Yes,” she said, interrupting my words.

“And…,” I continued. “Well, that’s when I made certain promises to GOD to not get high or drunk and to not have sex until I was married.”

She laughed. “I made those promises too…“

“Yeah,” I said as I looked her squarely in the eyes. “But I haven’t broken any of them.”

Silence.

“Wait, so you’re saying…Are you saying you’re a virgin?”

I was 30 years old then…I’ve had this conversation with so many women, both churchgoing and otherwise, and the reaction is always some kind of meltdown. It makes me reluctant to share it anymore. A few years ago, I wouldn’t have thought twice about specifically identifying myself publicly as a virgin, but the older I get, the more it complicates my relationships with people. People who aren’t Christians don’t understand. But I wouldn’t expect them to..

Church folk, on the other hand,..well, they say they believe this is right. But let them find out you’re a virgin in his 30s and they act like something is wrong with you. They either act like you’re the guy from “The 40 Year Old Virgin” movie or you’re just a freak – like you can’t choose to not have sex. In their minds, only two options exist: You either have to be a lame or a misfit.

Virginity is, of course, a complicated issue. I understand that. But I know a few other Christian men who are virgins (older than I am), and they’ve stopped telling church folk altogether…

These days, I often let people think I’m a lothario, as that’s generally what they assume anyway because of my ease with women. The only people who know that I’m a virgin are the women I date –and even they don’t know right away.

And it’s all because of these crazy reactions…For a while, because women in the church were so averse to this news, I tried dating women who didn’t go to church…

I think of the girl who fell to her knees, naked, crying. “What’s wrong with you,” she said as the tears flowed. “Why won’t you $%*@ me?” Or the stripper who found that she was aroused by a “dominant virgin” fantasy when she found that out that she couldn’t punk me.

And then when I did date church women, the response wasn’t that much better…They said they agreed with me on this matter but attempted to tempt me by degrees: “We don’t have to do anything. Just take your pants off…”

I reflect upon these experiences: all the women I’ve loved, all the women I’ve tenderly kissed and all the women I’ve just “made out” with…And somehow, I wonder what it all means…What does it mean that these women have passed through my life? What does it mean that women have learned to equate their worth and sense of power with their ability to grant or deny sex?

At times, I feel very alone in this journey. Occasionally, I feel disappointed in GOD. I wanted to be married by now. I did not expect to be alienated by church folk for obeying what they taught me. And more than that, if GOD wanted me to preserve myself sexually, then why does sexual energy come so easily to me? Why do I love women’s bodies so much? Why do I know how to kiss a women’s neck, touch the small of her back or speak deeply into her ear in just the right way?

These things come naturally to me…All I can think is, because sex is such a driving force in my life, it means something to GOD that I’ve been able to sacrifice it to Him.

I love women’s bodies. I love how they look, how they feel pressed close to me and I really love the idea of sex.

But I love GOD more…

And yes, I’m tired of waiting…so what’s up with your homegirl?

Any thoughts?

This weekend, I watched Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy for the first time in a while. Until now, I hadn’t realized how many Frat Pack comedians were members of the Channel 4 news room.
Comedians such as Will Ferrell, Ben Stiller and Jack Black have always been Frat Pack members, but some supporting actors in Anchorman five years ago are now topping the box office. Paul Rudd’s bromance films with Jason Siegel are popular, David Koechner has had several roles alongside Ferrell and Seth Rogen is arguably the biggest draw with films including Superbad and Knocked Up tied to his name.
Here’s a run-down of the comedians who made fictional ’70s news hilarious.

---

---

Channel 4 News

Will Ferrell as Ron Bugundy – anchorman
Christina Applegate (not considered a Frat Pack member) as Veronica Corningstone – co-anchor
David Koechner as Champ Kind – sportscaster
Steve Carell as Brick Tamland – weatherman
Paul Rudd as Brian Fantana – field reporter

Fred Willard as Ed Harken – news director
Seth Rogen as Scotty – cameraman

Cameos

Vince Vaughn as Wes Mantooth – lead anchor (Channel 9 Evening News)
Luke Wilson as Frank Vitchard – lead anchor (Channel 2 News)
Ben Stiller as Arturo Mendes – lead anchor (Spanish Language News)
Jack Black as Motorcyclist

“Forgetting Sarah Marshall” er en komedie. Den er skrevet av Jason Segel, som også har hovedrollen som Peter Bretter. Jeg må innrømme at jeg lo meg gjennom hele filmen.

Filmen handler om Peter som blir dumpet av kjendiskjæresten sin Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell), og ettersom forholdet varte i ca. 5 år, så tar Peter dette svært tungt. Han bestemmer seg etterhvert for å reise alene til Hawaii for å komme seg litt vekk. Og joda, der treffer han selvfølgelig på Sarah og den nye flammen hennes, som da er rockestjernen Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). Og dette takler ikke Peter så veldig bra, og det gjør jo bare alt hysterisk morsomt. Faktisk!

Tror ikke jeg skal fortelle så mye mer, men kan si at Mila Kunis også er med i filmen. Og det er produsentene fra “The 40 year old virgin” og “Knocked up” som står bak filmen. Jeg føler jeg bør anbefale filmen til alle som vil ha en morsom filmkveld.

Her er en trailer til filmen:

If one was looking in the New York Times’ Op-Ed section today for some opinions on the state of Obama-care or the media negligence surrounding the War in Iraq, one might have been surprised to see instead, a self-styled film review praising the “conservative values” of the films of Judd Apatow

Ross Douthat, the Times’ newest Op-Ed columnist and replacement for the gladly departed William Kristol, chose to wrote his Op-Ed this week on the film “Funny People” and how it was Apatow’s “most conservative” film in a long line of them.

His article, entitled “The Unfunny Truth,” states that no contemporary figure has done more than Apatow, the 41-year-old auteur of gross-out comedies, to rebrand social conservatism for a younger generation that associates it primarily with priggishness and puritanism.”

To make such a claim is to invite sniggers, as how can making movies involving so many Jews, Canadians, comedians, members of the so-called “Hollywood elite”, not to mention penis jokes, make for a “rebranding of social conservatism”?

But Douthat backs it up by citing The 40 Year-Old Virgin as an example of the benefits of waiting to have sex until marriage, calling the ending of that film akin to “an infomercial.”

More noticeably, he cites Apatow’s second film Knocked Up as an example of the arguments against abortion, with its scenes of rushing Katherine Heigl into a difficult choice, put upon by her parents, where she rejects the idea based on that discomfort.

Of Funny People, he claims that it reinforces the institution of marriage, citing George Simmons’s (Adam Sandler) misguided attempt to break up his ex’s marriage despite her two children.

“This time, doing the right thing has significant costs — but you have to do it anyway,” Douthat writes. “This time, doing the wrong things for too long has significant consequences — and you have to live with them. It’s the first Apatow film in which love doesn’t conquer all. And it’s the first Apatow film in which you get punished for your sins.”

Funny People was, now controversially, panned by most critics who saw it as bloated (it was marketed as a 150-minute comedy), but who also saw it as just not funny enough.

While I would say that might be the fault of the marketing of the movie, it might also be considered telling of Apatow’s attempts to be serious about love and loss, or his focus on the methodical ways of the stand-up comedian and their tenuous grasp on maturity through their profession.

In the same paper, A.O. Scott penned a defense of the film Funny People, citing it for it’s ambition, without mention of Douthat’s purported conservative overtones.

Is Funny People the most conservative comedy since An American Carol? Or is it just another movie, well, about Funny People that Americans didn’t seem to get too much?

I would say that Mr. Douthat reads too much into Mr. Apatow, a writer who claims all of his films as autobiographical, and his allegiances. I don’t think it is “conservative” to believe in love, or to have a frustrated sexual life (indeed, many conservatives seem to be enjoying quite active ones). I think Heigel’s character’s choice in Knocked Up was a product of feeling like she was pressured into something she didn’t want, not a reaction against the nature of abortion. Indeed, one might think that someone as assiduous as her character was in that film would have riled if she didn’t have a choice as to whether or not to terminate her pregnancy, which is what a socially conservative position espouses.

Still though, thinking about Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill as counter-revolutionaries espousing Apatow’s conservative message is a lot funnier than looking at a usual op-ed subject like Iraq. Or the economy. Or the job market. Or the housing market. Or Afghanistan. Or…

-Nicholas Feitel, Contributing Editor

Nicholas Feitel also writes for his own blog, Feitelogram.

I don’t usually do updates like this but some very interesting things have happened I feel since I published my attack on Manohla Dargis/attempt to defend the movie “Funny People”.

On one hand, I have had multiple people come up to me, or comment on my blog, and flat out disagree with me.

“After the first movie, I was like okay.” One person told me, referring to Judd Apatow’s films. “After the second one, I was tired of it. And now with the third, I’m just like come on. How are these ugly fucks getting any girls whatsover?”

This was a graduate film student, who I had casually struck up in conversation while exporitng my movie to DVD, so to hear his exasperation was something strange.

Another example came as I awoke this morning from my friend and pretty cool/cynical animator, Nathaniel Katz.

“I would really prefer something more nuanced than a bunch of male chauvinist conservatism masked as ‘ugly, stupid guys get beautiful women while only talking about their dicks’” He wrote.

“If I wanted that, I could just watch porn.”

Both of these people’s anger/annoyance at “Funny People” or Judd Apatow in general strikes me as disproportionate, but we’ll get to that later.

Because the same weekend that I received comments about my defense of “Funny People”, TWO articles were published in the very same paper that originally trashed the movie: The New York Times.

In A.O. Scott’s piece, Spoon-Fed Cinema, he stops just short of attacking Manohla Dargis’s review of “Funny People”, stating that the “debate will rage on” on that front. But what he does do is bemoan the fact that Apatow’s “most serious film, whose subject is the challenge of maturity”, was also his one that was least able to connect with viewers. According to Scott, this represented a degradation of Americans’ response to nuanced cinema, punishing darker movies like “Funny People” and “The Hurt Locker” (also mentioned in the article), while rewarding high-budget low-value trash like “Transformers 2″ or “Harry Potter 6″. According to the math of it, Scott says, based on the successes and failiures of this summer, less ambitious movies will be made as studios bank on sequel after sequel and pre-established franchise after franchise (Live-Action Smurfs movie anyone?). The fact that Apatow failed when attempting to make a darker and more interesting movie than his previous films, means that he’ll either have less free reign on the next film potentially, or that perhaps he won’t be able to make his films for a while. The latter possibility I find hard to believe, since his two previous films have made so much money, but Scott makes an interestng point.

Taking it to a wholly other extreme, I was amazed to find Ross Douthat’s Op-Ed piece in the New York Times today was also about “Funny People.”

Entitled “The Unfunny Truth”, Douthat, a conservative brought into replace the degenerate William Kristol as the “token conservative” on the Times’ Op-Ed board, had written his weekly piece on how the films of Judd Apatow are deeply socially conservative. This is a criticism I have heard before, but never so explicitly. Douthat argues that “40 Year-Old Virgin” is a parable about waiting until marriage (or at least responsibility) to have sex, while “Knocked Up” shows that not every botched one-night stand has to end in abortion. What’s more by combining these values with crude humor, Apatow has made this brand of social conservatism “cool”.

I should interrupt to point out that I feel that this criticism is deeply flawed. It is the same criticism that leads people to call “Juno” a “pro-life” movie, when to read that in to it is to intuit too much. Firstly, the films of Judd Apatow are all, according to him, explicitly autobiographical. “I wasn’t 40 when I lost my virginity.” He told a crowd at the DGA Theater. “But I was up there. There were 10 years when I didn’t have sex in my life and that wasn’t my teens or in when I was 5.” As was Knocked Up, a film he described as himself, fractured into two stages of his marriage. The Paul Rudd character in that film is almost explicitly Apatow, married to his Apatow’s wife in the film, Leslie Mann, and bearing Apatow’s own children playing pastiched versions of themselves (as they also do in “Funny People”). The point being that in these films, we are not dealing with ideologies but rather with personal decsions. Unlike what some people might have you believe, it is not “conservative” to think that an abortion might not always be the right idea (as seen in “Juno” or “Knocked Up”), it is pragmatic. If anything, it is the decision of the female characters involved in those films to try something that defines them, a “choice” that they are given, the same that some conservatives might deny them. I might also point out that in the same movie that Steve Carell is dealing with his awkwardness regarding sex, another character played by Paul Rudd is attempting with the help of his friends to fuck his way out of depression. Apatow is always careful to portray personal stories and to counterbalance or to mock them, in order to try to put them in perspective. Like the three-point lighting technique of cinema, it’s what makes his characters pop.

Anyway, back to Douthat. Douthat says that “Funny People” is the least popular of Apatow’s films because it is the most socially conservative. In the previous films, he points out, doing the “right thing” (wink) was fairly easy.

“Still a virgin in middle age?” He asks. “Not to worry — you’ll find a caring, foxy woman who’s been waiting her whole life for an awkward, idealistic guy like you. Pregnant from a drunken one-night stand? Good news — the oaf who knocked you up will turn out to be a decent guy, and you’ll be able to keep the baby and your career as a rising entertainment-news anchorwoman. Frittering away your life on porn and pot? Fear not — your wasted twenties won’t stop you from being a great dad.”

However, in “Funny People”, George Simmons (Adam Sandler) is confronted with the prospect that he has wasted his life and is going to die. In response to this, he seeks human comfort selfishly, first through his human pillow Ira (Seth Rogen), but then through trying to reconnect with “the one who got away”, Laura (Leslie Mann) who is inconveniently married to a boisterous Aussie (Eric Bana), with two kids no less. If perhaps this was a conventional “easy-out” film, Bana would turn out to be a jerk, Sandler would go in and save the day, everyone would be happy, we’d see Adam Sandler smooching and then we’d go home. But here, the message is that we can’t turn back the clock.

“This time, doing the right thing has significant costs — but you have to do it anyway.” Douthat writes. “This time, doing the wrong things for too long has significant consequences — and you have to live with them. It’s the first Apatow film in which love doesn’t conquer all. And it’s the first Apatow film in which you get punished for your sins.”

Even if I don’t agree that it’s Apatow’s “most conservative” film, I would endeavor to call it his most mature and perhaps most stridently realist.

It is defintely a half-an-hour too long, but it deserves a better look.

***

Finally, the two complaints from the beginning of the post answered.

Question 1. “Why do all those ugly guys get all those hot girls?”

I feel this question seems to breed some resentment. No, this isn’t fantasyland. These movies are somewhat autobiographical. Also, Seth Rogen’s girlfriend in real life is like a model or something. The answer, gentlemen, is this. They’re nice, moderately attractive, often very funny guys. In “40 Year-Old Virgin”, Catherine Keener is pretty much made out as a plausible fit for Steve Carrell’s awkwardness: a pretty, self-sufficient woman who has as many mixed feelings about affairs as he does about his lack thereof. She doesn’t have a problem finding sex, but he’s looking for love, which at her age is attractive. In “Knocked Up”, seemingly the most implausible of the pairings, in the beginning, they were both very, very drunk. Question answered. But more than that, it is a criticism of LA and the fading ideal of older, incarcerated action stars (Wesley Snipes) or younger, dunderheaded ones (Channing Tatum) as models for attractiveness. Isn’t it fair that in a city of such shallow pretention, where every guy is trying to look like “the leading man”, the girl might try something different at least once? Finally, in “Funny People”, George is incredibly successful when he finds his then girlfriend Laura and fame is sexy, even if you don’t find Sandler particularly attractive back in his “Hannukah Song” days. As for Rogen and his girl, the stunning Aubrey Plaza, the answer’s there too: originally she doesn’t like him. She fucks his roommate the more classically attractive Jason Schwartzman, who is also more successful than he is. When Rogen confronts her on it, she points out the folly of his impulses in one of the film’s more honest scenes, before he frustratedly states his middle-schoolish intentions, the tenderness of which she decides to honor with at least a date. The point is that I’m not sure why people have so much issue with these films. Beautiful women go with less attractive men every day, for a number of reasons.

I mean, jesus, just look at this.

***

Question 2. Why are they always talking about their dicks?

For “Funny People” this question is easy to answer: they are comedians. Have you ever seen a comedian? The laugh is the most important thing to them, not the material necessarily though that is important. They work off anything that is funny and things that are uncomfortable are funny and talking about penises generally makes a portion of the populace uncomfortable. In “Superbad” they are talking about them as a sign of ther immaturity and inexperience. It is merely an attempt at some sort of comic realism, if not for the whole film than for the moment. But ultimately, why? Because it’s funny, or in “Funny People” because it’s uncomfortable and in both situations, because it’s a way men avert from talking about other subjects. Which gets me to my next point, if you don’t like it, easy: Don’t watch the films.

***

Douthat and Scott make interesting points, even if I don’t agree with all of their conclusions. I think that the outlook for Apatow films and other nuanced comic-dramas are less apocalyptic than Scott might think, since Apatow has still earned Hollywood a bunch of cash and Jody Hill is now on the scene with his own brand of comic deconstruction, as well as the satisfaction of Robert Siegel’s upcoming “Big Fan”. I think what Douthat regards as “conservatism”, I see as “individualism”, the same strain that caused the “South Park” creators to rebel against what they felt was a complaced Hollywood liberalism in their show, without necessarily throwing themselves to the defense of people like George W. Bush. In both cases, the creators are comedians and it’s ultimately about getting the laughs or deconstructing them, whether by fart or dick jokes, or simply by going unexpected places in the narrative.

And if you don’t like that, well, there’s always “Transformers 2″.

The jokes are all there, but what really makes Funny People great to watch is the incredible emotional depth that it has, that’s what makes it Judd Apatow’s most mature film to date. But alas, not his best.

I was prepared to absolutely adore this film, ready to give it an A+ grade, but I didn’t find myself loving it as much as I thought it would. What I did find myself loving as much as I thought I would, however, was Adam Sandler’s performance, which is definitely his best to date, maybe tied at the top by his other great one, in Punch-Drunk Love.

Sandler plays George Simmons, who’s this amazing stand-up comic superstar who discovers he only has a short time to left to live, he, however, doesn’t really have anyone to turn to, he’s a star, but he’s isolated from any real sense of companionship from other people. Sandler plays this side of George tremendously well, and you find yourself loving this Sandler, a Sandler that’s not the immature joker he always seems to be, much like Jim Carrey, this is a guy who excels the most when he’s out of that comfort zone of his.

Then George meets Ira, Seth Rogen’s character, a talented and ambitious young guy on the stand-up circuit who he takes under his wing, letting him write material for him, letting him open for him, and then just simply pouring his heart to the guy as he becomes the only true friend he’s had for a while.

We then learn about Laura, played by the extremely lovely Leslie Mann, who was, in George’s life, the one that got away. She is now married to this obnoxious aussie, played really really well by Eric Bana, and George finds that, much like before, Laura is someone he can trust and confide in, something he needs right now in his life.

The thing with this film is that it really is too long, and even though it’s too long it really doesn’t have that much cohesion as the conclusion feels too quick for my liking, that’s what kept me from giving it an A+ grade, but nevertheless it’s an awesome film, with a fantastic script and mind-blowing performances from pretty much everyone involved, not only Sandler, especially Rogen and Jason Schwartzman who, like Sandler, show a new side to their acting which is fantastic to witness. And what’s best, we fuckin’ feel for George, we really do, and a film that makes you care is a rare feat nowadays it seems.

Kudos to Judd Apatow, a guy who, even though has been involved in one way or another in most of the great comedic films of the last half decade, has only directed three films, The 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up and now this one, and he’s a guy that has shown tremendous growth and evolution from one film to another one. And here’s to the next one.

Grade: A-

Welcome to the Inaugural Edition of Celebrity Gossip, Academic Style Roundtable — a feature I hope to continue somewhat regularly.  Today’s topic — Leslie Mann, Judd Apatow, and ‘Women of a Certain Age’ in Hollywood, was first proposed by the one and only Kristen Warner, who, like the other participants in this panel, is either a current or former student in the Department of Radio-Television-Film at the University of Texas-Austin.

A bit on each of our roundtable participants, in part to help illuminate some of their comments below:

Kristen Warner (The One and Only KW) studies ‘color-blind’ casting and recently completed a research trip to Hollywood, where she sat in on several casting sessions, but will make you wait to hear the juiciest details until the publication of her highly anticipating dissertation.  She also likes Mad Men and making fun of my chaco sandals.

Peter Alilunas (PA) completed his M.A. at UT before departing for cooler pastures at the University of Michigan, where he studies, amongst other things, masculinity and its manfestations.  His excellent blog, Manvertised, catalogs some of the most valuable yet ephermal traces of ‘manvertising’ in the public sphere.  He also happens to be my doppelganger: he grew up in Moscow, Idaho, where he was one of Lewiston’s arch rivals; he and I unknowingly shared a class on Stars at the University of Oregon (he was a savvy undergrad, I was a clueless first year master’s student).  I can make him laugh on command by mentioning the words ‘Lamonts Department Store.’

Courtney Brannon Donaghue (CBD) specializes in analysis of film industries — and the Brazilian film industry in particular.  We share a common affinity towards celebrity gossip, CSA vegetables, and Scorsese.  She happens to have been a member of my sorority, but she didn’t even know the anchor wave when I first met her.

R. Colin Tait (CT) is Canadian, and that might be all you need to know about him.  He thus uses an extra ‘u’ in odd places and replaces the ‘z’ with an ’s.’  But he also studies the film industry, with a particular eye to Steven Soderbergh (on whom he’s currently deep in co-authoring a book) and ’70s nostalgia.

I start out the post below and the other respondents take it from there — and we’d love to hear more of your thoughts, or suggestions on future topics.   And if you’d like to be a future respondent, just let me know.

Funny People star Leslie Mann

AHP:
First, a bit of backstory.
Leslie Mann is an actress.  She is also the wife of Judd Apatow.  Whether her designation as the former should be or can be wholly attributed to her designation as the latter (and the politics of such designation) is the topic of this ’round table.’

According to Wikipedia and IMDB, Mann was selected from an open casting call for a role in The Cable Guy (1996), for which Apatow served as co-producer and co-writer.  They married in 1997.  Since then, she has appeared George of the Jungle, Big Daddy (with Apatow’s former roommate and current star Adam Sandler), Perfume, Orange County, Stealing Harvard, the Apatow-helmed The 40-Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up, but also Drillbit Taylor and 17 Again.  In other words, she has appeared in non-Apatow films, but her most distinguished performances have been in films of his making.  Apatow also cast his own daughters in both Knocked Up and Funny People – a decision I’ve seen attributed to the ease of working with family members (as opposed to unfamiliar actors/stars).

Now, the point in question, first suggested by the one and only KW, is how we should regard Mann’s roles in said films.  In her words, “Leslie Mann: self-serving climber or ‘wife of a certain age’ who probably wouldn’t be allowed to work, finding herself in advantageous position?  Where does she fit in relation to contemporaries of similar ’situation’: Demi Moore, Katie Holmes, Annette Bening, Mia Farrow, etc.?”

These questions now go before our roundtable panel, composed of current and former UT RTF graduate students.

I’ll start us off with a bit of provocation: yesterday, Nikki Finke published the anonymous email below, detailing the ways in which Universal is fending off (or failing to fend off) criticism related to the relative failure of Funny People (which opened with a disappointed $22 million over the weekend, and is expected to continue to slide with negative word of mouth — certainly not the sort of numbers associated with Knocked Up.  It’s also insult to injury concerning Universal’s piss-poor summer — see here for Finke’s scathing analysis).

“PS… Judd did shorten it. I saw a three hour, forty five minute version of  “Funny People” and Judd’s goal was to get it to “Knocked Up” length. And that’s where he got it, too. And the studio was happy with that length. And the idea that someone would directly tell Judd that the part with his wife had to be particularly shortened is ridiculous. Ask that person to give you details on that conversation. I would love to hear how that went. It didn’t happen.”

************************
AHP:

I’ve been reading this rather elementary book on political economy in television and film — it’s called Culture Conglomerates, and it’s obviously meant to be an introduction for upper-level undergrads, but it’s spelled out the connections in all aspects of the industry (production, exhibition, distribution, both in film and in television) in the most coherent fashion of all other political economy I’ve read.  (For those outside of academia — Political economy = The study of who owns what, and the assumption that ownership matters — and can inflect the product that the company produces.  Recent political economy is especially keen to note the ways in which consolidation and conglomeration over the last 50 years (and the governmental deregulation that facilitated it) has made it so that a very small handful of massive conglomerates control the vast majority of our media).

Anyway, one of the author’s points is very persuasive when it comes to this argument: Americans love us some individuals.  We love individual achievement.  It’s at the heart of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the ideology of the American Dream (and general Americanness) that structure our belief system.  So when we think of a piece of art, whether it be a television show or a movie, we like to attribute the achievement to the individual — this is the impulse behind auteurism, of course, but also behind the way that we, as a society, generally talk about movies.  (The author’s point is that in focusing in on the genius of the individual, we lose sight of the corporate machinations which really create the movie — and he’s absolutely right.)  With the shift away from straight-up auteurism, we think of producers – whether Apatow or Jerry Bruckheimer or whomever — as auteurs.  Show-runners as auteurs.  Major actors as auteurs.  Within this paradigm, it’s easy (and simple!) to attribute all achievement within the particular film to that selfsame auteur:  a Wes Anderson film is the product of his unique vision; all performances were directed and entirely his idea, the distinctive set design borne of his dreams.

And so it is with Leslie Mann: it’s as if we’re in Greek mythology and she sprung completely formed from Judd Apatow’s forehead, and now does his bidding and projects his thoughts.  Her agency = completely elided.  Her skill — and it certainly does take skill to play a shrewish wife that makes ‘treehouse’ Ben Affleck always look affable — forgotten.

Returning to Peter’s point, it’s far more comfortable for us to attribute genius to men.  Women are always part of a team of genius — we don’t talk about Katheryn Bigalow so much as the plotting and the performances.  Jane Campion’s The Piano was the product of her and Holly Hunter (and Anna Paquin).  Julie Taymor’s Frida is her vision plus Salma Hayek’s passion.  And tour de force female performances — including those of Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet — always have a male director who’s really responsible.

************************
CT:
Aren’t Kate Winslet and Sam Mendes one of those power couples? If so, is Kate Winslet immune to this kind of criticism and why?

************************

PA:

           On a recent trip to LBI, my friend and I decided to go see Funny People, the new and highly anticipated Judd Apatow directed film.  At the end of the film, the disappointment from the crowd spread like a wave starting from the back of the theater and swiftly moving down to the bottom row. 

           This shocked us, because this movie was actually really good.  What caught these people off guard is that, while on their week long vacations from the world, they were treated to a movie that actually had meaning.  What they got was Funny People, what they wanted was Funny People Movie. 

           From begining to end, Funny People is both heart-felt and hilarious.  But most of all, Funny People is a real movie.  Unlike his previous films such as Knocked Up and The 40-year-old Virgin, Judd Apatow has created a movie that rests somewhere between crude comedy and dark comedy.  It is not quite as dark as a Cohen brothers film, there is no bloody ending, but there is some real passion.

           On top of that passion, there is also some real acting.  Adam Sandler plays George Simmons, a successful comedian who has recetly been diagnosed with a rare form of Leukemia, and is faced with the prospect that he may die a lonely man.  His character is an examination of fame, and how lonely someone can feel even if the entire world knows who they are.

           Rogen plays Ira, a comedian struggling to make it in Los Angeles.  The two mens paths cross one night at the comedy club, and Sandler hires Rogen to be his assistant.  I don’t like reviews that give an overview of the entire film, you can go to IMDB for that, so I’ll just say that the rest of the movie revolves around the relationship between Sandler and Rogen, as well as Sandlers attempt to win back the love of his life. 

           Between all this seriousness are some seriously funny jokes.  The film is a perfect mix of emtions, without any one emotion taking control.  It’s a roller coaster ride, but one that even the least experienced rider can enjoy.

“You know what would make a good story? Something about a clown who makes people happy, but inside he’s real sad. Also, he has severe diarrhea.” —Jack Handey

 This Deep Thought—if you replace the word “diarrhea” with “leukemia”— kind of sums up the conceit of Judd Apatow’s new film (technically only his third as director, but his influence as a producer/writer has been felt everywhere in comedies recently, from Pineapple Express to Superbad), Funny People: Adam Sandler plays George Simmons, a beloved but lonely comic on the verge of death, who befriends/employs an upstart comedian, Ira Wright (Seth Rogen).

Simmons is in some ways an analog of Sandler himself (an important difference, however, is that Sandler, unlike Simmons, is married with two children): A stand-up comedian turned star of popular, critically panned films—Re-Do, about a man-baby, Sayonara Davey!, about a white man living with a Japanese family, My Best Friend is a Robot, about, well, you can probably figure it out— that bear a certain resemblance to Sandler’s own filmography.

While these films bring Simmons fame, fortune and success with women, they don’t bring fulfillment, and when Simmons gets sick, the only person he tells is his new assistant, Wright; Simmons has no close friends or family he feels comfortable confiding in. The movie, then, presents Simmons as the proverbial “sad clown”: He makes other people happy, but not himself.

All of this may have the sound of a formulaic, heavy-handed morality tale. As in, “Wealthy and famous actor goes through near-death experience and realizes that he’s rich in material possessions… but poor in love,” but Apatow, Sandler, and Rogen never let it veer into such schlock. Simmons is not the typical “funny asshole with a heart of gold” that populates certain, particularly Apatow, movies; Simmons is just as an asshole.

This fact is something that gradually dawns on the audience as the film progresses: We are not necessarily meant to fall for Simmons as easily as we are used to falling for Apatow’s flawed, but innocent and well-meaning, heroes like Andy in The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Ben in Knocked Up, Evan and Seth in Superbad or Peter in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. The friendship that grows between Simmons and Wright is not your typical Apatow bromance, as Simmons never treats Wright as an equal and is always quick to cut him down when he gets too comfortable.

Funny People is being received as Apatow’s first mature or “grown-up” movie, and while these reviews tend to either overestimate this film, or underestimate Knocked Up, et al., this is certainly Apatow’s most serious/least funny movie. As the name of the film implies, Funny People is more interested in showing funny people than being funny. As a result, the characters, almost exclusively comedians (including Aziz Ansari’s “Raaaaaaaandy,” who we see disappointingly little of), say funny things, but there is little humor outside of the dialogue and the snippets of on-stage moments we see.

And yet, despite these limitations, Funny People is a great movie. The dialogue, consistently Apatow’s greatest strength as a writer, is natural and funny (and now that all of the characters are comics, they finally have an excuse for their equal deftness with one-liners), and the characters are more fleshed out and developed than in any of Apatow’s previous movies. Instead of a cast of similarly inexperienced but well-intentioned, passive men, we have characters that are, in varying doses, career-driven, mean, shallow, moral, patient, aggressive, and egotistical. 

The “knock” on Apatow’s movies, and the recent romantic comedy genre in general, has been their glorification of lazy, stunted, immature males—often at the expense of straight-laced females. This is what makes his movies both appealing and somewhat formulaic: Man/men in rut, pursues woman, learns he must “grow up” to win her, quick montage of “growing up,” man/men get/s girl/s.

But Funny People deviates from the mold. The “girl” Simmons pursues is actually a married woman, Laura (Leslie Mann, wife of Apatow), his ex-girlfriend from long ago who now has kids (played, of course, by Apatow and Mann’s own progeny) with her Australian husband, and his pursuit of her does not lead him to grow up, but rather to regress into his selfish, entitled, movie-star attitude; it’s not simply a matter of the right woman pulling the man out of his immature funk.

Sandler, for his part, plays Simmons very well (Sandler, despite his apparent readiness to do commercial junk like The Waterboy and Little Nicky, actually can act, see: Punch-Drunk Love): He resists the urge to play him as a lovable, well-meaning goofball and instead plays up his narcissism and self-absorption, making him less likable, but more realistic. At the same time, Simmons is self-aware, repentant and, above all, eager to get a laugh—he doesn’t stop making jokes even when he is getting his diagnosis.

The film spends only a brief amount of time on exactly how related the two defining aspects of Simmons’ character—his sense of humor and his self-loathing—are, but it is the crux of the film. Apatow is interested in how “funny people” can ever be serious and how, if they can’t, this can potentially make them unhappy: There is a telling moment, during a rift in the Simmons/Wright friendship, where Simmons tells Wright that he isn’t funny. Wright says fine, he’d rather not be funny if being funny means being like Simmons. Simmons replies: “Bad career move.”

This link, between being funny and being lonely, is reinforced when Laura shows Simmons and Wright a video of her daughter singing a song from “Cats.” Wright and Laura tear up, but Simmons calls it “hilarious.” For a brief moment, these seem like the options Apatow is presenting: You can be funny and witty and alone, or you can be married.

The last third of the film, in which Wright and Simmons leave their home court of one-liners and barbs and stand-up comedy for the home life of Laura and her family, is where this contrast is clearest. Simmons wants to rekindle things with Laura, but Wright keeps urging them to leave—he knows they don’t belong there and wants to leave before they do any lasting damage. Wright knows that, while Simmons may claim to want the family Laura has, he isn’t really up to the task.

This final act of the movie loses a lot of the humorous dialogue (we are out of the realm of comedians, after all) of the first part of the film, and at times seems to replace it with ludicrous and knee-jerk plot developments. But it resists formula and holds interest at every turn. Apatow also refuses to fall back on a simple, easy resolution.

All of this room for nuance represents an admirable break from the traditional mold, even if it sometimes takes the movie in an odd direction. The end of the movie has, at times, a hastily put together feel, but not in a “We’re striving for a quick solution” way, but more of a “We’re in uncharted waters here and we’re not quite sure how to handle it” way.

It’s too early to determine whether this movie will be as memorable and rewatchable as Knocked Up and The 40 Year Old Virgin (and Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Superbad), but I think it’s fair to say that it probably won’t be—it’s not as quotable or funny as those movies and, not coincidentally, not as good (just how causally related those two things are is an interesting debate). But it is certainly more ambitious, and it signals that Apatow is not sticking to a formula with his movies. I, for one, am excited for his next one.

Judd Apatow has been one of Hollywood’s leading directors/producers of the last few years.  From “The 40 Year Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up” to “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”, Apatow has, for the most part, kept the hits coming.  Now, with “Funny People” starring Adam Sandler, Leslie Mann, Seth Rogen, and Eric Bana, Apatow enters new, darker territory.  How does he fare?

The Good:  Adam Sandler gives his best performance to date by far.  This proves that with the right director, Sandler can turn in one heck of a performance, and shows that he has more depth than the usual characters he plays.  Rogen, Mann, Bana, and the rest of the cast, including Jonah Hill, give pitch perfect performances as well. 

The script leads the story in very realistic directions, and doesn’t succumb to the end everyone thinks is coming.  Instead, it ends how it should, as the audience discovers along with Ira (Rogen) that George Simmons (Sandler) hasn’t exactly learned a whole lot from a near death experience.  Judd Apatow proves once again why he’s one of the most talented directors of our generation.  He handles the emotional scenes with enough touch to make us care, but not over the top.  Unlike so many films now days, where characters are thrown in just to get laughs, but serve no purpose, each character adds something to the story and film. 

The Bad:  This is not what audiences expect from Apatow.  Gone is the light hearted raunch “date movie” material that we are used to.  There is far less laugh out loud and “What the hell?” humor in “Funny People”.  The humor is much more subtle for the most part.  Also, if you go by the trailer, “Funny People” will disappoint you.  The trailer portrays the film as the average Hollywood story of a man learning several life lessons when he thinks he is about to die, ends up living, gets the girl, and lives happily ever after.  This is anything but. 

The Final Word:  Yes, this is Apatow’s darkest work.  Yes, this is not as laugh out loud funny as his other two films.  But, this is also, arguably, his finest work.  The emotional highs and lows that he takes the audience on, the unexpected and surprisingly realistic and authentic story, and the humor and heart Apatow is once again able to fit in his film, is beyond belief. 

True, this film has divided critics, and underperformed at the box office.  But, do yourself a favor, and see this film.  It’s a unique and great experience, the kind of film that is a breath of fresh air in the midst of most of the same stuff Hollywood produces.  “Funny People” is heart warming, heart breaking, fun, and yes, funny.  That, in my book, makes it one of the better films of the year so far. 

Lukas Eggen

“Funny People” is a solid effort by director/screenwriter Judd Apatow, but it falls just short of what it hopes to accomplish: a perfect blend of comedy and human drama that is both touching and amusing.  I walked out of the theater just thinking about all the potential it had, and I nailed the main factor as to why it paled in comparison to Apatow’s previous features, “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” and the uproarious “Knocked Up.”  It loses the sense of realism and relatability that Apatow nails so brilliantly.  The story concerns itself with comedians, one a superstar, one at the cusp of stardom, and several right underneath that cusp.  These people have a funny exterior, but when you peel back the layers, they are vulnerable, troubled, and quite dark.  It is harder to identify with these people because their problems are so detached from our own, as supposed to previous Apatow characters like the slacker, the virgin, the control freak, and many other “normal people.”

If you saw the first trailer for the movie, you know just about all there is to know about the plot.  George Simmons (Adam Sandler) is a lonely comedian diagnosed with a terrible disease and prepares himself for death, mainly by trying to form a true human relationship with another comedian, Ira Wright (Seth Rogen).  But when he appears to be cured, he tries to reclaim what he has lost in his life, mainly Laura (Leslie Mann), an old girlfriend who he let slip away.  Sprinkle in a ripped Australian husband for Laura (Eric Bana), a few of Ira’s friends trying to make it big (Jonah Hill, Jason Schwartzman), a quirky love interest for Ira (Aubrey Plaza), and a few celebrity cameos, and you have “Funny People” in essence.

The film has a running time of nearly 2 1/2 hours, but surprisingly, there is never a dull moment.  Some great acting turns help to overcome a fairly lackluster script.   Adam Sandler gives a very nuanced performance as George Simmons, a character we are led to believe is not too far removed from himself.  While it still has some of Sandler’s trademark shtick and ridiculous voices, he takes us on an emotional roller-coaster ride and doesn’t let us off until the conclusion of the movie.  The film tries so hard to really show that it has heart, and Sandler is the only actor who really seems to deliver on that front.  That being said, he also shows the darker side of fame better than anyone in recent memory.

Leslie Mann, the scene stealer in “Knocked Up,” is pitch-perfect as always.  She just lights up the screen and fills it with a bubbly charm that cannot be resisted.  Unfortunately, she really only pops up for the second half of the movie.  Mann and Sandler have irresistible chemistry together, which is what really helped make the second half shine.  Although the script lacks relatability, Mann is the real human connection in this movie.

Seth Rogen, however, seems out of place in a role where he is not a lazy slacker or a pothead.  Ira is written to be a very serious funny person, and Rogen doesn’t quite nail it.  His scenes with Sandler play out as a comic man/straight man routine, which is not what I think it was intended to be.  Ira does link the movie to a very funny subplot with his roommates, Jason Schwartzman as a mediocre TV actor and Jonah Hill as another struggling comedian.  Hill is the only person who is consistently funny throughout the whole movie, but unfortunately, he and Schwartzman are not given the screen time that they deserve.  Neither is Aubrey Plaza as Daisy, Ira’s love interest.  The shame is that she really is an interesting character, but the script botches she and Ira’s relationship.  Their story is only one of many loose ends not tied up at the end of the movie.

This review might sound particularly scathing, but I really did enjoy the movie.  After delivering “Knocked Up,” which is in my mind one of the funniest movies ever made, I had such high expectations that this could never have possibly exceeded.  It is uproariously funny, although sometimes it goes a little over the top on the vulgar humor, which I felt Apatow did almost as an apology for the dramatic elements of the movie.  The performances by Mann and Sandler are ones for the ages, and “Funny People” makes for a good time at the movies – just don’t expect “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” or “Knocked Up.”  B+ /