"Get Him to the Greek" Review

Until this past weekend, I’d never sat through a film as literally the only audience member. So that’s new.

Granted, it’s been nearly a month since the initial release of “Get Him to the Greek,” and admittedly, the screening was before noon on a Sunday, but it’s an experience that couldn’t help but enunciate exactly how often I wasn’t laughing. The silences practically echoed.

However, the scenario was hardly the film’s sole detractor; the Apatow-produced comedy was, in many ways, the polar opposite of what I expected. From a structural standpoint, I anticipated there being a harder driving force; I thought the plot—Which sees Russell Brand reprising the role of debaucherous rocker Aldous Snow from “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”—would consist of a series of escalating outlandish and out-of-hand party sequences with the omnipresent ticking clock to keep it dramatically grounded.

But if anything, “Get Him to the Greek” is not only pointlessly cyclical in how it stacks its scenes, but cause and effect are tossed clear out the window. The gist of it is that the irresponsible Snow must be chaperoned (Cue Jonah Hill as record company intern Aaron Green) to the Greek Theater in Los Angeles for an anniversary concert in 72 hours. Writer/director Nicholas Stoller sets up countless potential snags for Green, such as Snow forgetting his commitment altogether, and the duo running impossibly late for their flight, but renders nearly every plot device irrelevant within ten minutes of its introduction. There’s no potential for suspense when resolution is always a few easy lines of dialogue or a scene transition away.

“Will he make it?” should be the audience’s imperative question, and I mean, of course he will, but it’s like Stoller isn’t even trying to make us squirm. Then again, his script is so heavy with missed opportunity that frustration and boredom may produce the identical effect.

And just when his story should be roaring to a climax, it all but sputters out. Our heroes make it to LA with time to spare, which they then spend mending spats with their significant others—A transparent and lazy attempt at adding depth to this lightheaded farce. It allows Snow to have his obligatory existential crisis before the show—Only to be reaffirmed by Green, acting for the first time, as a friend.

This has grazed into spoiler territory, I guess, so let me pitch you a better ending while we’re here. After much trial and tribulation, Snow and Green arrive at the venue with moments to spare. The lights are down; Snow steps on stage and belts out the first song. He is met with the rousing applause… of just a few hundred fans. Reality check. Now he can have his existential crisis. In finally coming to terms with his diminishing career, his friendship with Green is made all the more poignant, and his comeback single (which the film already goes out on) is all the more triumphant.

It’s not hard to rewrite a film that so narrowly jukes its own potential. I sought out “Get Him to the Greek,” even four weeks late, because I was sold on the trailer. The premise is strong, and the Brand/Hill combo under the Apatow umbrella seemed like a sure thing. The bottom line is it’s not all that funny; but even more disappointingly, its narrative backbone is flimsy. If a great story had been locked in, and had I felt even momentarily unsure that he would be gotten to said Greek, those echoing silences might not have mattered.

But when I’m not invested in the story, and I’m not laughing, I become painfully aware that I’m the sole occupant of a silent two hundred seat theater.

2/5

FARCE/FILM Episode 50: Knight and Day, Get Him to the Greek

--> Episode 50: 06/27/10 <--

Hosts: Colin George, Brian Crawford, Kevin Mauer, Jon Mauer, Tyler Drown, Suman Allakki

Intro – 00:00

Top 5 – 03:15

Knight and Day – 10:12

Get Him to the Greek – 34:16

WMD – 50:34

(Tin Cup, 500 Days of Summer, Harry Potter 6, Better of Ted, Funny People, Green Zone, Hurt Locker, Alice in Wonderland)

I Can't Believe You've Never Seen - 01:26:16

(Gone with the Wind)

Chat Room Questions - 01:35:19

Outro - 01:45:49

"Knight and Day"

Colin:
Crawford:
Kevin:
Jon:
Tyler:
Suman:

"Get Him to the Greek"

Colin:
Kevin:

--Weekly Discussion--

This week, Colin discusses the expired politics of the 1939 film "Gone with the Wind" and his inability to sympathize with the protagonists. Should a film be examined strictly within its original context or should it retroactively be held accountable for their messages?

LIVE show this weekend!

Sunday, June 27 at 8 PM EST - Check out FARCE/Film's live podcast of Episode #50 over at Ustream. Follow the direct link here.

Tyler will be back fresh from Amman, Jordan, Suman will be on hand with his opinion on Toy Story 3 (in 3D!), Jon will be drunkenly defending Killers, and Sonic will be joining us in a NEW FORMAT!

All that and more this Sunday!

"Killers" Review

The first fallacy of “Killers” is that Ashton Kutcher could play a spy. Yes, the same Ashton Kutcher that looks unsure if he’s holding his camera correctly in the Nikon ads. The second fallacy is everything else.

From top to bottom, the movie is just a structureless mass of contrivance and cluelessness, so ineptly executed and chaffingly unfunny that the awful-looking trailer actually oversells it. For starters, the courting of co-star Katherine Heigl is stuffed uncomfortably into the first thirty minutes, during which Kutcher plays it cool and takes off his shirt, and Heigl embarrasses herself by acting half her age.

The character she plays is a grown woman apparently so embarrassed to be seen on vacation with her parents that she tells Kutcher on their first date that her nearby father is a Russian pervert stalking her. She’s an neurotic teenager trapped in the body of a thirty year old, but it’s not like Kutcher is any deeper. Their behavior is often so adolescent that it wouldn't surprise me to learn “Killers” was actually a hastily rewritten “Cody Banks” script.

In all seriousness, there is one lame franchise to which it bears more than passing resemblance—“Meet the Parents.” Heigl’s father (Tom Selleck, in his first live-action feature film role in over a decade) is a virtual carbon copy of the hard-ass, maybe-not-so-retired CIA patriarch Robert De Niro portrayed (more memorably) back in 2000. His wife (Catherine O’Hara) is also an unoriginal caricature—The boozy grandma. It’s one of those readymade faux-quirky character traits that seems to be in constant circulation despite so rarely being used to any effect.

And as if the clichés Selleck and O’Hara wear like badges of honor weren’t enough, they’re never off-screen for more than 10 minutes because of Heigl’s weird unresolved dependency issues. But here’s the really strange part; after what feels like only a few short days, she and Kutcher inexplicably decide to get hitched, with the latter vowing to give up his dangerous secret lifestyle once and for all.

Fade out. “3 Years Later.”

Careful, you might get whiplash with the speed at which “Killers” makes a hairpin turn. The entire rest of the film is about a married couple facing a series of mysterious and unexciting assassination attempts with so little plot for point of reference that at the 90 minute mark, I wasn’t sure if the film was ending or halfway over (ending—Mercifully). It turns out that during the three years the audience isn’t privy to, our heroes have led a “Truman Show”-esque fake life, meeting new friends and neighbors that turn out to be sleeper cells that when activated, leap into clumsy, inarticulate killing mode.

There’s also some obligatory relationship tribulations peppered throughout for good measure—Some suspicion of infidelity and a potential pregnancy—But nothing that even momentarily alleviates the profound chore it is to watch these dull characters perform their lame fight scenes and deliver their insipid dialogue. To top it off, Kutcher and Heigel have about as much chemistry as a pair of Tom Sellecks.

“Killers” is maybe the worst-told film of the year. It’s impossible to discern from the wreckage who exactly is at fault, but the script (which surprisingly, is partly credited to Ted Griffin, who wrote “Matchstick Men” for Ridley Scott and “Oceans Eleven” for Steven Soderbergh) is nothing short of a disaster. The weak performances and bad direction only rub salt in the wound.

The network of miscalculations on display in "Killers" is so vast that ‘fallacy’ doesn't account for half of it—Failure is a better word.

1.5/5

"Toy Story 3" Review

Great. Another funny and heartfelt animated adventure from Pixar. Throw it on the pile.

All sarcasm aside, “Toy Story 3” is the latest brilliant release from a studio whose creative Gatling gun has yet to fire a blank. Maybe not every cinematic shot they’ve taken has been a dead-center bullseye, but everything they touch falls somewhere on the gradient of good to great, which with eleven films under their belt, is certifiably ludicrous.

And since Pixar debuted its first feature, the original “Toy Story,” in 1995, its storytellers and artists have not only refined and mastered their craft, but they’ve done so without failing or having to repeat themselves. Sure, Disney forced their collective hand four years later into doing the follow-up, “Toy Story 2,” but now over a decade later, the studio is dropping its first voluntary sequel.

Maybe because “Toy Story” was such an important part of my childhood, and probably because I grew a lot in the four years separating it from its successor, I never shared the fondness I had for the first film with the second. That likely accounts for the pre-release uncertainty I felt towards this newest installment; I didn’t want to risk the disappointment of another fun but frivolous caper.

Fortunately, “Toy Story 3” almost immediately dispelled my doubts. It combines the rock-solid dramatic core of the studio’s recent work with the classic atmosphere of adventure and clever comedy the two prior “Stories” are known for. It’s a match made in heaven, and though “Toy Story 3” feels slightly redundant of part two at its foundation, the added emotional weight of the toys’ uncertainty that they even have a caring home to return to raises the stakes considerably.

Part three also benefits from feeling more intimate, and consequently, more focused than the trilogy’s middle chapter. “Toy Story 2” was an addition to “Toy Story” in every respect; new protagonists, and more action at a larger scale. “Toy Story 3” begins by stripping away many of the series’ established plastic personages because their owner, Andy (who has aged almost in real time between the releases of the three films), is preparing for college and has outgrown them. The cast is comprised of the best of the best (and Jesse, but whatever), though the narrative focuses squarely on Woody.

As such, not all of the toys’ stories reach individually satisfying ends, but as a unit their curtain call is bittersweet and touching. It is, after all, a film about growing and letting go, a more melancholy motif than some might expect, though Pixar has famously refused to shy away from so-called ‘darker’ themes. What’s genuinely surprising is that the studio made the third “Toy Story” film a vehicle for that ideal set. It’s a thread that finds the gang donated to a local daycare (which eventually becomes a prison-break scenario), and making one last trip home.

Really, when the worst thing you can say about a film is that a few of its jokes fall flat, you likely have something pretty special on your hands. That “Toy Story 3” also concludes a trilogy in such fine form makes it all the more a standout. With it, Pixar have proven once again their unrivaled integrity as a production house not only capable of creating compelling stories, but of franchising those stories in a way that respects and complements the original work. “Toy Story 3” is arguably the best of the lot.

In the coming years, Pixar has at least two more sequels planned, first for “Cars” in 2011, and then for “Monsters Inc.” the following year. If it was ever a concern that the studio was creatively stalling or financially motivated to revisit its established worlds, “Toy Story 3” should put those fears to rest. In fact, we better make more room in the pile.

4.5/5

FARCE/FILM Episode 49: Toy Story 3, The Killers

--> Episode 49: 06/21/10 <--

Hosts: Colin George, Brian Crawford, Kevin Mauer, Jon Mauer

Intro - 00:00

Top 5 - 01:21

Toy Story 3 (spoilers) - 07:20

Killers (spoilers) - 45:11

WMD - 56:11

(Little Children, 9, Saw, The Land Before Time, Valentine's Day)

Events and Outro - 01:09:51

"Toy Story 3"

Colin:
Crawford:
Kevin:
Jon:

"Killers"

Colin:
Crawford:

--Weekly Discussion--

This Week, our hosts suggest that the “Toy Story” series has special impact on those that ‘grew up’ alongside the owner of the film’s toys, Andy. Does age differential impact the way we perceive its characters? What are some films that carry weight especially because of the age you saw them at?

"North Face" DVD Review

“North Face” is nothing if not tenacious.

The German-language mountain climbing epic paints the Swiss Alps circa 1936 its looming antagonist, quietly intercutting the narrative with restless shots of the mountain’s dark wall; alluring, beautiful, and mortally dangerous—And this is before our heroes plant so much as a single piton in its cliff.

“North Face” excels as a visceral experience, but the palpable atmosphere is played almost to a fault. Maybe it was the blasting AC unit, but I found myself zippering up my sweatshirt and pulling over the hood as the alpine ascent unfurled. Director Philipp Stölzl batters his audience with the sheer relentlessness of the frigid conditions, which makes on one hand for an uncommonly authentic portrayal, while on the other, renders the film a difficult watch. Overtaking the two plus hour running time is a feat in itself.

It doesn’t help that “North Face” is historical fiction. The true story never squeezes quite comfortably into the confines of screenplay structure, and in juking audience expectation, robs the film of its potential impact. Without giving too much away, the first half of the film is about climbing up the mountain, and the second half is about climbing back down; happy ending or no, when the credits roll, it’s tough to walk away feeling entirely satisfied.

Maybe a part of that is that we don’t get to know the characters very well. German climbing duo Toni Kurz (Benno Fürmann) and Andreas Hinterstoisser (Florian Lukas) serve as our reluctant protagonists, renowned for their climbing prowess but whom must be coaxed into scaling so formidable a foe as the Eiger. They seem like two normal enough chaps—Maybe too normal. Scraps of personality are scattered across the first act, and despite a half-hearted attempt at a love interest, we never concretely understand what’s at stake for the characters on a personal level—That’s a huge hurdle to overcome in terms of caring what happens to them.

But if there’s one area in which “North Face” doesn’t disappoint, it’s in its cinematography. It’s a gorgeous film, with tremendous visual verve and an uncompromising aesthetic. Through camerawork, Stölzl portrays better than most the perilousness of the journey his heroes endeavor to undertake, underscoring the concessions made and the consequences of even the slightest misstep or equipment fault. It shows in key sequences that radiate suspense, with careful manipulation of the frame and superb audio editing.

“North Face” is not without its faults; for every technical achievement and beautifully captured moment, there seems to be an underdeveloped character or bit of perforated plot standing in its way. It’s an occasionally tense, exciting movie, though more often it’s an exercise in atmosphere, which it has in spades. From the whipping winds to the whiteout sheets of ice and snow that ceaselessly buffet Kurz and Hinterstoisser, “North Face” is a film that’s practically tangible.

Comparatively, its pacing and characters may sometimes feel uninvolving, but the most important character, the Eiger itself, is perfectly realized. And it’s one harrowing look.

3/5

"North Face" is available on DVD and Netflix instant queue.