Funny People
Funny People (2009)
★★ / ★★★★
“Funny People,” written and directed by Judd Apatow, stars a bunch of funny people: Adam Sandler as a senior comedian who discovers that he has a fatal disease, Seth Rogen as an aspiring comedian who Sandler hires to write jokes for him, Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman as Rogen’s flatmates, Leslie Mann as Sandler’s ex-lover and Eric Bana as Mann’s unfaithful husband. Unfortunately, the material was not as funny as I expected it to be. In fact, it was quite serious because the lead character was obviously depressed because of his doomed fate. There were a few jokes with chuckling from here and there but there were no laugh-out-loud funny moments as they were in “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” or “Knocked Up.” If Apatow was aiming for some sort of a dark comedy because it did (or was supposed to) have jokes about death, then I believe it completely failed on that level. I had major problems with Sandler’s character because I wasn’t sure if I was supposed to feel sorry for him. Not for one second did I feel bad for him because he was a jerk even to those who obviously cared for him. When his character finally met up with Mann after years of not seeing each other, he fell in love with her all over again but I didn’t buy it. After all, how could a guy who didn’t value himself and his friendships value some kind of a romantic relationship (and a flimsy one at that)? The film wasn’t logical and it should have been because this picture was supposed to be for adults. I was more interested in the angle regarding what it took to be a successful comedian instead of Sandler’s so-called plight. I enjoyed the cameos from Sarah Silverman, Andy Dick, Charles Fleischer, Eminem, Ray Romano, and others. With such a brilliant cast who are very funny in other movies, this film failed to take risks. Instead it featured one contrived and sometimes uncomfortable moments on top of one another. If it weren’t for the breathers (such as the cameos) that had nothing to do with the drama in the character’s depressing lives, I would have been harsher with this picture. If you’re a fan of any of the names mentioned, then by all means, see it. However, I warn you to not expect too much because it doesn’t have enough meat to carry a two-hour-and-thirty-minute feature.
Rogue, La Vie en Rose, Pineapple Express
Rogue (2008)
[ 2 stars out of 4 ]
I decided to see this film for two reasons: Michael Vartan (due to the fact that “Alias” is one of my favorite TV shows and he made the show that much better) and the giant crocodile that eats people. I wanted to experience suspense and see gore–I got exactly what I wanted. This is a typical horror creature film in such a way that the first thirty minutes has nothing going on except show some fantastic views of the setting. Despite of it being cliché, the formula works for me because it leaves room to establish the characters that we’re supposed to care about prior to the crocodile’s feast. In that respect, even though it hits and misses, I thought the film did a mediocre job. Things quickly picked up when the Radha Mitchell and her group of tourists were attacked by the giant crocodile. They were trapped in a little island where, as each minute passes by, the tide gets higher and higher. They know they have to get out of there but the predicament lies in the crocodile patrolling the waters. I thought all the actors did a pretty good job freaking out and the execution of some ideas (such as the rope scene) hones in on the idea of what people are willing to do in order to save themselves. As for the final battle between a character and the scary giant crocodile, it was thrilling but it was very funny at the same time because it was so ridiculous. It’s almost as if the filmmakers just went for it and reflected the B-movies of the 1980′s. The risks paid off because they tell the audience that the filmmakers weren’t taking the picture too seriously and the audiences shouldn’t either. Overall, I was interested while watching this movie but I thought it could have been a lot better if Sam Worthington was in it a lot more. He provided complexity and a little bit of heart, which the film sort of lacked.
Vie en Rose, La (2007)
[ 2 stars out of 4 ]
I almost want to give this picture a solid recommendation due to its mesmerizing second half, but I can’t find it in my heart to forgive the extremely slow and uneven first half. When Marion Cotillard (who played Edith Piaf) won the Oscar for Best Actress, I was extremely frustrated with the Academy because I expected Julie Christie to win for playing a woman who was ravaged by Alzheimer’s disease in “Away from Her.” But after watching some of Cotillard’s other films (like “Big Fish”), including “La Vie en Rose,” I realized how much she had to transform in order to play Piaf. I was really impressed because she almost had to carry the entire film by herself. I don’t know if it’s the characters or just the style of filmmaking that turned me off. This film does not have a typical American style biopic because it has many scenes that didn’t help to drive the story forward. Sometimes, the audiences are subjected to see scenes that are designed to muster some sort of an emotion and nothing else. Paif also didn’t click with me because she was a diva. One would think that her traumatic childhood would keep her grounded more than anything else. But that isn’t exactly the filmmakers’ fault because they were only trying to tell the story of what really happened. On other fronts, it was also nice to see Gérard Depardieu even for just a little bit. I wish he was on screen for a lot longer because his presence made the movie have some sort of pop. This film’s detached feel certainly backfired for me. If the second half had been the entire film, I would’ve been perfectly happy because it managed to show some heart. For a film that’s about two hours and twenty minutes, one would think that the film would have more substance. For an excellent biopic, I’d recommend “The Aviator” instead.
Pineapple Express
[ 2 stars out of 4 ]
I didn’t expect much from this film because I heard about the mixed reviews it received but I did watch it with an open mind. There were some funny scenes but there weren’t enough of them to make the film a stand-out from most stoner comedies out there. Seth Rogen is funny as usual but I didn’t find his acting particularly different from “Superbad” and “Knocked Up.” I felt like he’s the kind of guy who could’ve done more to make the film a bit edgier and politically incorrect… but didn’t. The real star here is James Franco. I didn’t expect him to be so good as a pot head but he nailed the character right on the head. I knew some guys in college who acted and talked like him. Despite the archetypical druggie he’s playing, I found Franco captivating whenever I’d look at him in the eyes. I found some sort of sparkle in his eyes that reminded me that he’s only playing a character which, strangely enough, I found to be a great thing. (Most of the time, I don’t like it when I notice that an actor is merely acting.) There’s nothing much to say about this film because nothing much happened, other than the usual ruckus audiences are expecting to see in stoner comedies. But I must mention that I wish Judd Apatow should consider not putting his name in every movie that comes out because his name is pretty much synonymous with “must watch with high expectations.” I wish this picture would’ve strived for something more because it’s hard not to notice its talented actors not optimizing their potential.
