At the Movies: It's okay to get Knocked Up.

I absolutely love The 40 Year Old Virgin, that 2005 comedic gem from writer/director Judd Apatow that pretty much caught everyone by surprise. It was the best mainstream comedy in years, and surprisingly sweet and emotional. It's a tough act to follow. Which is why I am utterly delighted to report that Apatow's latest film, Knocked Up, is actually better in almost every regard.

The basic premise is simple enough: Ben Stone (Seth Rogen) is a slack-y stoner who, with his buds, runs a website listing all the movies where hot actresses get nekkid. He makes zero dollars. Alison Scott (Katherine Heigl) is an up-and-coming personality at the E! Channel who has a promising future and lives with her sister Debbie (Leslie Mann), her sister's husband Pete (Paul Rudd), and their two children. One night, Alison gets smashed and hooks up with Ben. They wake up, she discovers he's absolutely horrifying and disgusting. She ditches him. Eight weeks later...she finds she's pregnant, and Ben's the father. She tracks him down and after much awkwardness the two decide to keep the baby and stick through things together, with varying degrees of success.

What's most surprising about Knocked Up is how tenderly Apatow and cast handle the situation. Apatow managed to treat the plight of a 40-year-old virgin with just the right combination of sweetness and vulgarity, and while the same remains true for Knocked Up, the emotional complexity here is far deeper and richer. There are so many wonderful dynamics: Ben and Alison are complete opposites and it's fascinating to watch their relationship grow and deepen, each proving unsuited to different facets of parenthood; Debbie and Pete are hilariously mismatched yet perfect for each other; Alison and Debbie are sisters, so of course they share similarities, but it's great to see Debbie's personality traits pop up in Alison's moments of intense emotion and vice versa; after Ben tries to become semi-responsible, watching him handle his druggie friends is both funny and compelling.



Basically, the movie is about how you change yourself for the people you love, the lifestyle negotiations that brings about, and exactly how much control you can exert over your own life (turns out, not that much). Everyone in this movie, much like in real life, is different around different people, and it's great to see this kind of depth in the movies. I'm not necessarily saying that Knocked Up is a brilliant character study, but the way in which it subtly explores all of these relationships and quirks in the guise of a mainstream sex comedy is great.

And of course, it's funny as hell. Seth Rogen proves himself deserving of top-notch funnyman status; every punchline he delivers is impeccable. For much of the movie, I couldn't catch a breath I was laughing so hard, especially when he and Paul Rudd were onscreen together (Rudd's delivery is also amazing). Add to this great cameos from Ryan Seacrest and James Franco (both as themselves), Harold Ramis, and Alan Tudyk, and you've got yourself one genius comedy. But the performances also skew emotional, and again Rogen proves himself absolutely winning; his partner, Katherine Heigl, gives perhaps the sneakiest performance here. At first, Heigl seems a bit too straight-laced and cutesy, but her range of emotion keeps evolving and growing until you absolutely do not question her place in the movie.

The 40 Year Old Virgin was broad comedy, whereas Knocked Up is a scaled-down, more intimate kind of comedy peppered with broad bits. I'm almost surprised this is in the mainstream; ten years ago, it would've been a cult sensation. I struggled a lot with whether or not to give this the top grade, and while--for now--I decided against it, Knocked Up remains a fantastically funny and sweet A

Insert witty post topic here.

AKA, Will and Why Blogger Needs to Expand the Character Limit in Their Subject Lines. I tell ya, what I had was gold, but alas...

Anyways, first off, I'm sorry I haven't been able to contribute more to the blog as of late. I've been really busy finishing up my school shit and things are hectic enough without added responsibility. However, AJ seems to be posting enough for me, him, and maybe a...Third Man.














If you're any sort of movie fan (I mean, hey, why else would you be wasting your time reading our shit?), you're familiar with Carol Reed's classic noir The Third Man. Not only is it one of the best noirs ever made, but it's also one of the best movies in general. And just recently, Criterion decided to recognize this (for the second time, I should add) with a new two-disc DVD set. Now, admittedly, it was tough throwing down $35 for my copy, but it was well worth it. The picture on this thing is just fucking astounding for a film of this age; the wet cobblestones of Vienna have never looked better. And the extras...hell, I still haven't been through them all.

Bottom line? If you dig the flick (as well you should), run out and get it. And if you already own the earlier edition, I'd say it's worth the upgrade.

Now, I dunno how this happened, but somehow I managed to hit the movies not once, not twice, but three times this week. And to my surprise, all the flicks I saw impressed.






















Oh, what? Didn't think I was gonna hit one of the biggest movies of the summer? No...no, of course you did because chances are, you probably went to see it too.

I'd been jonesing for the next Pirates flick ever since the credits rolled on last summer's Dead Man's Chest, an action extravaganza that unquestionably (at least, in these eyes) wiped the floor, the walls, and maybe the ceiling too with the first film. So, with mad anticipation, I entered the theater...

I won't waste time giving you a run-down on the plot, as AJ already did that and then some. But in these days following my seeing At World's End, I've been having some serious deja vu. Honestly, where's Denzel when ya need him (hey, it was entertaining...)? I remember last year when all the fans of the first were expressing their disappointment with the second installment, while I was sitting there thinking, "What...the...hell is wrong with these people?" And now, with an even larger wave of displeasure upon us, I have only one thing to say.

What...the...hell is wrong with these people?

At World's End kicked ass, folks! Sure, in comparison to the almighty Dead Man's Chest it comes up relatively slight, but who cares? Captain Jack's as insanely hilarious as ever, Barbossa's back in action, and Davy Jones...damn, I like him more and more each time I see him. The flick's not without its problems (most notably, a first half that could've been cut down slightly), but getting to see these characters in action once again more than made up for it. And, jeez...the last half hour, which is basically one non-stop action sequence, is one of the most fucking mind-blowing things you're likely to see this year.

As far as the series goes, this one ranks second for me, and I'll definitely be picking it up whenever it hits the shelves. Arrgh! A-















To say the very least, I did not have high hopes for Disturbia when I went to see it. Hell, the only reason I was seeing it is because my theater, in its blatant stupidity, didn't get Knocked Up this weekend. However...to my shocking surprise...Disturbia was not bad!

I mean, yeah, it's basically Rear Window lite, but what're ya gonna do? Honestly, I really fucking enjoyed this movie. No, it's nothing great, and I've got a few complaints to toss out, but ultimately it's a decent film, as it's far smarter and way more intense than any other suspense-thriller out right now, especially for one directed to a younger audience.

What I really dug about the movie was that it took its time getting set up, something most other modern thrillers seem to avoid. The flick's very steadily paced, with just the right mix of character development and intense moments. And speaking of intense moments, the film's final fifteen minutes are fucking brutal.

I gotta say, David Morse was fantastic as the villain here - definitely some echoes of Raymond Burr. I've never been a big Shia LaBeouf fan, but he actually did a pretty good job as the lead. Of course he's no Jimmy Stewart, but he definitely showed more acting chops than I'm used to. This is the only flick I've seen from director D.J. Caruso (a lot of them look pretty iffy), but he's definitely got a good visual sense and has a knack for building intensity.

The caveats for this one lie mainly with a very mediocre array of supporting actors, some all-too-silly moments, and an opening scene that's...that's just not right for this movie. Should you choose to see it, you'll know what I mean.

I make no guarantees as to what you'll think of this movie, but as for me, I had a good time. And that's what counts...riiiight? B















I have saved the absolute best for last. When I first saw the trailers for William Friedkin's latest effort, Bug, I really didn't know what to think. It was one of those that looked interesting, while at the same time seeming sort of lame. But, as things turned out, I found myself near a theater that was playing it and curiosity won out. And thank God for that.

Bug is, without a doubt, one of the strangest films I've ever had the pleasure of viewing. It starts out as a slow-paced drama of sorts, but slowly becomes a descent into madness and paranoia. To say any more would be to spoil all the little surprises that Bug holds for its audiences.

Based on a play of the same name, Bug takes place almost entirely in a single hotel room, which, naturally, is reminiscent of Richard Linklater's brilliant indie, Tape. For just that, I have to give the film credit. Any movie that can hold interest and actually build intensity out of a single location deserves some recognition. But I tell ya..."intensity" is the understatement of the year for what Bug becomes.

As of now, Ashley Judd and Michael Shannon are easily my picks for best actor/actress this year. Their performances in this flick are just...amazing. Once again, I'll have to leave it at that, because going into detail would ruin the experience. I will say this, though. Remember the scene in JFK with Joe Pesci going apeshit in the hotel? Shannon's performance is very reminiscent of that...only multiplied by 1000000.

With Bug, William Friedkin proves that he hasn't lost his touch. The man behind such classics as The French Connection and The Exorcist, Friedkin's got expactations to meet and believe you me, he meets them and then proceeds to rise farther and farther above them with each frame. Bug's got some of the most interesting (and terrifying) visuals I've seen in a long while, and I gotta give him props for the directorial choices he made.

Basically, you have to see this movie. There's no telling whether or not you'll like it. In fact, chances are you'll dislike it (I know the other people in my showing certainly did). But you owe it to yourself to give it a shot...might come out surprised. A

And that's it for me this weekend. Hopefully in a few days I can get my ass to some showing of Knocked Up...and then proceed to laugh said ass off. As I write this, AJ's seeing it, so look forward to his thoughts on it.

That's all, folks...or something a little less clichéd. Your call.

From the Bookshelf: Joss Whedon: The Genius Behind Buffy

An extremely fun and entertaining read, Joss Whedon: The Genius Behind Buffy largely covers Joss Whedon's television career as a writer on Roseanne and Parenthood, among others, and of course his triumvirate of perfection, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and Firefly, though it does have some very informative chapters on his film career as one of the most important script doctors of the 1990's. But to be honest, I'd take his TV career over anyone's film career.

The book is a bit sad, because at the time it was published--2003--Joss' product was still out there in the market. Granted, as the book winds down, the writer, Candace Havens, discovers that Firefly has most likely been cancelled (it had) and that Buffy may possibly come to an end (it did). Still, that left Angel, which got cancelled in 2004. There's no discussion of Joss' current film career, since the publication date preceded it, but it's been one of mixed joy and turmoil: Serenity continued the story from Firefly and won critical acclaim, but it flopped at the box office (though the book, and the man himself, makes it continuously clear that quality is far more important to Joss than money). He spent two years working on Wonder Woman before leaving because the studio didn't want what he wanted, and he didn't want what they wanted (I wonder whose ideas were better, eh?).

At the time the book came out, Joss was still a genius workhorse, and though he's still a genius workhorse, it's largely confined to the comic book medium (where he writes Astonishing X-Men and the official eighth season of Buffy). Now, while I absolutely adore comic books and think of them as an artform equal to that of television or film, it's been a mighty long time since I got to enjoy new Joss material on the screen, big or small. Luckily, it's been revealed that he's submitted a final draft of the screenplay for his psychological horror film Goners and will soon be finding out if he will be shooting it THIS YEAR. Which makes me all kinds of happy. But there is a certain sadness that hangs over the material here, especially those chapters detailing future television projects that Joss will never get to make.

Speaking of the book...let's actually talk about it. Havens is obviously a fan, and the book is pretty biased, but then again, this is not meant to be a definitive biography, rather an educational look into the method and madness of a creative genius. Which it is. There are plenty of great quotes from Joss himself, as well as those he has worked with, all painting a picture of the man as the unique, insanely creative maestro his fans have always known he is. Though a hardcore Whedonite I am (and ooh, that's some pretty scary, quasi-religious terminology right there), there are several things here that I was completely unaware of, especially Joss' early life and several film scripts he's already written that may or may not ever see the light of day.

I'm not exactly sure if Joss Whedon: The Genius Behind Buffy will have any literary value to those who are not already fans of the subject or his work (unlike, say, Bob Spitz's magnificent Beatles biography, published in the same year), but I do know, as one of those aforementioned fans, this is absolutely essential. A+

At the Movies: At World's End a fitting end

[NOTE: Will would like it made known that his reason for non-participation isn't because he doesn't love you. He wants to make babies with you. The real culprit is some strenuous schoolwork that will keep Will out of commission for the next several weeks, which saddens him to no end. Hopefully he will be back writing with me soon! Until then...enjoy The AJ Show!]

Back in summer 2003, I fell in love with Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, certainly Disney's edgiest live action fare up to that time, and with plenty of heart, humor, laughs, action, and thrills. I like heart, humor, laughs, action, and thrills. Unfortunately, The Curse of the Black Pearl hasn't held up as well on repeat viewings; I saw it a couple times in '03, once in '04, and again just this week, and I've liked it less each time, though I still like it and find it very solid and enjoyable. Now, I know that a lot of folks had problems with the sequel, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. My question to those people is: Did you watch the same fucking movie? Everything that rocked about the first was amplified and expanded, while proving insanely rewatchable (at least it did this week).

I'm not going to go on record saying that either one was a masterpiece (though with a little fine-tuning the second could've been), and thus I was able to approach Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, purportedly the franchise's final installment (though for the past few months there have already been rumblings of a continuation), without the insane sugar high expectations that allowed Spider-Man 3 to crush me as much as it did and with the knowledge that as long as it was fun, I'd have a good time. And I did.

Picking up directly from where the last left off, Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) is back after Jack killed him at the end of the first (death is meaningless in this series; more on that later), and under his captainship, the gang goes looking for the infamous Cap'n Jack (Johnny Depp) who was eaten at the end of the second by the ferocious Kraken when Elizabeth (Kiera Knightley) cuffed him to the Black Pearl as everyone else jumped ship. Later there's the exploration of the love "triangle" between Elizabeth, Jack, and Will (Orlando Bloom)--it's really a two-pronged love affair, but Dizzy Miss Lizzy has given Will reason to be suspicious of she and Jack--and a meeting of the pirate lords, including Captain Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat).

The film opens beautifully with a disturbing sequence of pirates being hanged, and then our gang has some adventure down in Singapore when they go to confront Sao Feng, but after that, it flounders until Captain Jack Sparrow shows up about 30 minutes in. Unlike the first two, the movie gets to a point where it seems to become aimless, and wanders around for a while before busting out its internal compass to find its way back to the hearts of moviegoers. This isn't to say that it meanders its entire length, but that around the halfway mark it becomes so tangled and mired in the seaweed of its own complex storylines and mythologies that it stops having a point. There are a lot of exposition scenes that come across as very exposition-y; they're transparent talking points with no flash or zing to distract us from the fact that we're learning things it's essential we know. This is particularly apparent during scenes revolving around whether or not oracle Tia Dalma (Naomie Harris) is Calypso, some sort of goddess. The audience is almost painfully aware it's being force-fed information to keep the plot going.

Fortunately, Jack's introduction scene in this film, an outrageously bizarre piece of surrealism that made me think I was watching something made by the opposite of Disney (actually, much of this film made me think the same thing), makes the movie fun and relevant again, but the lapses into aimlessness are periodic.



As I said before, I was a very big fan of the second film, which realized it was nothing but an absurdly over-the-top Hollywood action movie and it raised said blockbuster absurdity to something close to an artform, elaborate setpiece topped by elaborate setpiece in a stylishly deft juggling act by director Gore Verbinski. This isn't to say that all I want from this third entry is Action, Action, Action!--that couldn't be further from the truth--but some momentum is badly needed in places, and I kept wanting to feel that the movie was going somewhere I felt inclined to follow.

Also, through the film's many complicated plotlines--none of which I actually found confusing except for initially the concept of Davy Jones' Locker, which later grew on me--we discover that death is basically meaningless in this franchise, which is unfortunate considering Verbinski and writers Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio want you to be afraid and excited for these characters. Every time someone dies, there seems to be an easily explainable reason for their subsequent resurrection, sometimes so easy it's hard for the viewer not to feel a little cheated. This is a huge detractor from its suspense and danger, though I must say there's a nifty little twist near the end.

Luckily, At World's End retains its urgent pace in the last half-hour, in a deliriously complicated action tour de force that contains everything much of the duller spots were missing: Those ol' heart, humor, laughs, action, and thrills I love so much.

If you're a Pirates fan like me, you're gonna dig this, though let it be known it is the series' weakest point. If you're not a fan, well, it's almost three hours long, the acting's not gotten any better (as always, with the exceptions of Depp and Bill Nighy as the marvelous Davy Jones), and it's occasionally a mite dull.

And, by the way? Stay after the credits. You'll be glad you did. B

At the Movies: With any luck, Shrek The Third will be Shrek the Last; and we can only hope The Last Mimzy stays true to its title

So this was my first trek to the drive-in this summer (though the weather was in the 50's and 40's, hardly feeling like summer); hopefully I'll go a few more times before the place closes down for the fall. I loves the drive-in, you know? It's a unique experience, and a very American one (I know it's been copied in other countries since its 1932 genesis in Camden, New Jersey, but it strikes me as strongly American).

It's just a shame that the movies they show are always such shit. It's very rare I actually see a worthwhile movie at the drive-in, though it should be noted that seeing Jurassic Park at the drive-in on its opening day of June 11, 1993, was my first moviegoing experience and a defining moment in my life.

But just to show the crap I usually put up with to go to the glorious drive-in: Last year I had a double feature of Talladega Nights and Little Man, and felt like killing myself afterwards. However, seeing the Spider-Man movies at the drive-in (after midnight/early afternoon showings on opening day, of course) is a tradition (one I've yet to carry out for Spider-Man 3, though I caught snippets of it on the other screen tonight)...and I can say that I have now seen all three Shrek movies at the drive-in on their opening days.



But the series has never regained the heights of the first Shrek. Six years ago, in May 2001, Shrek was a witty, clever blast of refreshingly skewered fairy tale satire in the grand tradition of Fractured Fairy Tales and the like. It's still the only computer-animated film worthy of existing in the same realm as the gems thought up by Pixar (just forget about A Bug's Life). In these intervening six years, however, the skewered satire has become the norm, allowing for everything from Over the Hedge and Monster House to come along and borrow from its irreverence, never bettering or equalling it yet still managing solid laughs. This has made things harder for the Shrek franchise, and the danger signs were already apparent in 2004's Shrek 2: It's a pretty good flick, but already the formula feelt a bit tired and repetitive.

Now Shrek the Third doesn't just have the symptoms; it's the diagnosis plain and simple. Nothing new happens. Fantasy clichés are upturned. Rapid-fire pop culture references are had. Shrek, Fiona, Donkey, Puss in Boots, et al. once again have to go on some wacky quest while facing magical mistrials to prove that, Hey, don't judge your brothers, we're all Shiny Happy People! It's sad that none of this has any spark, zest, energy, or zing anymore. The important yet trite message that people are people no matter their outward appearance came across seemingly magical in the first, with that glorious transformation sequence at the end; in the second, it felt a little samey but overall pretty effective (like everything in Shrek 2); and in Shrek the Third, not even the title ogre and his bride seem to really care all that much.

The plot is interesting but lacks heart. King Harold (John Cleese) croaks (heehee, he's a frog, get it?), so Shrek (Mike Myers), with Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas) in tow, have to go to find Arthur (Just Timberlake), the only remaining heir, since Shrek doesn't want to take the crown. While the ogre's away, Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) finally enacts his vengeance against Shrek by attacking the Land of Far Far Away with an army consisting of every fairy tale villain ever, and endangering the pregnant Fiona (Cameron Diaz). Charming actually has a pretty good twisted character arc, but it doesn't go anywhere, and the film's 92 minutes rush by, though not in a good way. It just comes and goes quietly, disposably, without flashing any of the edge the first film so hiply and unabashedly reveled in. Whereas once the Shrek movies mocked product, it now has become the exact same product. Oh well, can't capture lightning twice, let alone thrice.



And then the second feature I caught was The Last Mimzy, which did almost incline me to bust out the razorblades like I felt compelled to last year. The plot is pretty silly: Two Bad Child Actors (Chris O'Neil and Rhiannon Leigh Wryn) find some weird shit on a beach which ties into this thing this scientist was doing and then they're all special and have to save the world and...oh, fuck it. Who cares? All I got out if it was that the kids here reminded me of the fact that Rory Culkin is still the only child actor consistently worth notice (and he's pretty much outgrown the "child" label anyway), and that Rainn Wilson can be amazingly witty and hip when he's not playing oddball Dwight on The Office. Also that everything Michael Clarke Duncan has done since The Green Mile remains nowhere near as good. And that I fucking hate kid's movies, especially ones loaded to the brim with pseudophilosophical bullshit like this one.

Say what you will about Shrek the Third--and I know that I did--but at least it wasn't pretentious. Shrek the Third: C-; The Last Mimzy: D-

I do, however, know that Will has seen Shrek the Third and liked it, so hopefully he'll offer an interesting counterpoint.

Catch and Release

Hmmm, my first post on the blog. Let's hope it's not something wordy, over-analytical, and pretentious...no, no, this is not the New York Times. Moving on...

Anyway, I'm the tran -- er, Will and I thought I'd kick off the posting with my thoughts on a recent release, Susannah Grant's Catch and Release.

From the trailers, one might think that this is a typical romantic comedy, but I came to find that there's a lot more to it. Centered around the aftermath of one man's death, this film allows us ample time getting to know the main characters of the play that was his life - his fiancée (Jennifer Garner) and his closest friends (Timothy Olyphant, Sam Jaeger, Kevin Smith). We've got several scenes here that are simply the other characters reminiscing about the man, all of which is definitely very good and very heartfelt material. The main caveat, however, comes in the form of a subplot concerning the relationship between Garner and Olyphant. Olyphant is definitely a good actor, most notably in Doug Liman's underrated Go, but here he's just a jackass (and seems to be aware of it) and their relationship - especially the beginnings of it - is wholly unbelievable. Their scenes alone together were fairly dreadful. One thing that surprised me here was Juliette Lewis, who has a good (and appropriately limited) role as a woman who claims to be the mother of the departed's son. All that said, the absolute top reason to see this film is Kevin Smith, who is nothing short of fantastic. Anyone who's ever seen one of his Q&A sessions or even a short interview will be familiar with the man's crude, talkative style and he brings all of that to his character here. In fact, he definitely deserves some recognition for this come Oscar time. Overall, Catch and Release is a case of the pros outweighing the cons. With some minor reworking, it could've been better, but as it is, it's a nice, sweet, often touching movie that anyone (even the guys) should dig.

Final Grade: B