Knocked Up: Seriously Funny

Romantic comedies, like most other genre films, are usually good at best; rarely are they great. One problem is that if the romance is to be taken seriously, the movie has to occasionally be, well, serious. This of course can detract from the comedy, as well as having potential pitfalls of its own. We're not talking serious drama here, which leads all too easily to a finger-in-the-throat reaction. The comedy, for its part, can all too easily exhaust its potential for premise-based jokes, and either succumb to stupidity, or disappear entirely.

Judd Apatow's second film, Knocked Up, is that rare mix of gut-busting humor and touching-but-not-saccharine light drama which is often attempted and so rarely acheived. Much like his first film, The 40 Year Old Virgin, the idea for which should have led to a disaster but instead it was brilliant, this film shows writer/director Apatow's skill in dealing with unusual subjects, which could easily be one-joke movies, or unfunny sap-fests. Instead, in Apatow's hands, they become original, funny, and real. In short, this is a contemporary classic in the romantic comedy genre.

The film stars Seth Rogen as Ben Stone, a slacker-stoner whose greatest ambition is to launch a website detailing the exact time any given actress gets nude in any given movie. Nevertheless, he's a good-hearted, caring individual, who is of course capable of redeeming himself. Rogen, an Apatow regular, has always had an immensely likable on-screen charm, and delivers a wonderful performance in his starring role debut. He's consistently funny (and vulgar), but also convincing as the nice-guy-who-never-gets-the-girl type.

Katherine Heigl plays Alison Scott, an up and comer in entertainment media. She is smart, succesful, ambitious, responsible, and good-looking. She is out of Ben's league. And yet they meet. And talk. And have sex.

The next day, Alison clearly feels that she has had drunken sex with someone she ordinarily wouldn't be with, but Ben is oblivious. Over breakfast, she clearly bristles at his inability to grasp their myriad differences, but once again, this would be news to Ben. She is evasive when he asks for her number, but he gives her enough information to contact him (he doesn't have a phone right now, he tells her, because of a "billing problem").

One might expect at this point that he never hears from her again, but that wouldn't be any fun, would it? Of course, as we all know from the title, she gets pregnant. She tracks him down, and the rest of the movie concerns her attempts to deal with her pregnancy, and to figure out what she needs/wants from Ben, and his attempts to prove himself worthy to her.

The romance is handled sweetly without being cloying, and dare I say, realistically? Judd Apatow's TV shows, Freaks and Geeks, and Undeclared were improv driven. Seth Rogen was on both those shows, and it's hard to believe some of those same techniques weren't used in this movie. Although I don't have information to that effect, Ben's friends all have the same first name as the actor who plays them, which I think supports the theory. In any event, it would explain how Rogen is able to come across so naturally.

The supporting cast is equally impressive. From to Paul Rudd, as Alison's restless, sarcastic brother-in-law, to Jason Segel as Ben's lecher friend, the movie is full of minor characters who keep the laughs coming, without getting in the way. The multi-talented Harold Ramis also appears in two scenes as Ben's dad, but the scene-stealing Kristen Wiig turns in the most memorable performance with her portrayal of Jill, one of Alison's bosses. It would be impossible to give an example here, because the hilarity was all in the delivery.

Knocked Up expertly weaves romance and comedy, but for me, the romance was satisfying but inevitable. The true measure of this movie's success is that it is ridiculously funny. It's hard to be that funny, especially over the course of a whole movie, and I'm always thankful when someone pulls it off, because who doesn't like to laugh?

The Simpsons Movie

Well, it's finally here, the movie version of the (arguably) greatest TV comedy of all time. This is big news, and apparently not just for geeks like me. The Simpsons Movie even got a mention in The Economist this week. If that doesn't scream "major event", I don't know what does.

The biggest question for me when I first heard there was going to be a Simpsons movie was, can they stretch what's already a dense 22 minutes into 90? I mean, a lot of things happen in an episode of The Simpsons, given the pacing differences of animation. How many things would have to happen to cover feature film length?

Well it turns out that wasn't a problem. It didn't feel too long and drawn out, nor was it so byzantine it failed to hold interest. It was a good length, with an engaging story, and wound up feeling a lot like any other episode (which is basically a good thing).

So, to quote Homer at the beginning of the movie, why pay for something that you can get for free? The most obvious answer is the big screen. The big screen (and sound system) is still a reason to go to movies. Is this a "big screen movie", you know, one that loses something important on TV? No. Clearly The Simpsons was meant to be seen on TV. But that's just it. After 18 years of 20 inches and 1:1.33 aspect ratio, the novelty of The Simpsons in the theater has definite value.

Another difference is that the movie is released from the restrictions of broadcast TV. This is hardly an enterprise that tries to offend, but sometimes what's funny is unacceptable for broadcast (and sometimes that very status is what makes something funny). This movie cleverly gives us a few (I counted three) instances where they're clearly saying, "this is the movie, we can do this, haha". This is worth a laugh or three.

The other main difference is that it is longer, and for those of us who have always been disappointed to see the credits at the end of an episode, this has some kind of value.

But this brings us to the real question: how does it rate against the best episodes? Unfortunately, by this yardstick, it rates somewhere below the cream of the Simpsons crop. Nevertheless, OK Simpsons is still great TV, and good Simpsons makes for a very funny movie.

The bottom line? If you're a Simpsons fan, you'll enjoy the movie. If you're not, this probably won't be your first foray into their wonderful world. In other words, you know if you're going; what do you need me for?

Here's One for the Rental List

Looking for a movie to rent, but tired of the same old, same old? Well let me come to your aid, with a recommendation guaranteed to tickle.

"I Like Killing Flies", a documentary by Matt Mahurin, explores the world of Shopsin's General Store, a Greenwich Village restaurant. This is a one of kind restaurant, run by a one of a kind man named Kenny Shopsin, along with help from his wife and grown children.

Shopsin's is a unique place, with a lot of character, and an enormous menu (check it out here ). Kenny Shopsin is apparently a very talented intuitive cook, putting things together simply because he thinks they'll be good. He makes the hundreds (I'm not exaggerating) of menu items from scratch as they are ordered. However, the phrase "the customer is always right" does not resonate with him, and if you break one of the rules, even unknowingly, you will find yourself hungry.

The film is shot in a cramped style, to match the cramped kitchen in which Kenny works, and it deals with a period of upheaval for the restaurant. It seems developers want the space, and Kenny must find a new location. Despite these hinderances, Kenny is able to continue cooking for his loyal regulars, as well as dispensing rough wisdom for the camera.

"I Like Killing Flies" is a unique film about a unique man and his unique business, and I highly recommend that you rent it. At least check out the menu.

Bush and the NIE

The National Intelligence Estimate, entitled "The Terrorist Threat to US Homeland", was released this week. As could be expected, the White House and presidential candidates all had self serving assessments. Is it possible, especially with a document filled with "likely's" and "maybe's", to arrive at an unbiased conclusion? Let's take a look.

In his weekly radio address on Saturday, Bush cited the passage, "greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al Qaeda to attack the U.S. homeland". The report does also state that specific plots have been thwarted, although it does not elaborate.

But it also states, "the group [al-Qa'ida] has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safe haven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership." This seems like yet more evidence that the Administration has failed to focus on the real problem, in favor of the Iraq debacle.

Furthermore, the report states, "al-Qa’ida will continue to enhance its capabilities to attack the Homeland through greater cooperation with regional terrorist groups. Of note, we assess that al-Qa’ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack
the Homeland." This is an organization that didn't exist prior to our invasion of Iraq. We didn't create it, but we enabled it.

So, are we, as Senator Clinton asserts, "safer"? Since 9/11, Al-Qa'ida activity is in evidence in Spain, Britain, and the Middle East. Not so far in the US. This says something, at least. But again, Mr. Bush: "we've strengthened security at borders and vital infrastructure like power plants and airports and subways." Yet these are exactly the kinds of areas in which the Bush Adiministration has consistently recieved failing grades. How can we really feel secure when we see evidence on a regular basis of how easy our "security" is to breach? Remember the 12 year old who not once, but multiple times was able to smuggle contraband aboard a plane? Just to see if he could do it?

So is there a solution? Should we look to the Dems to lead on this issue? Senator Obama says, "It is deeply troubling that nearly six years after 9/11, Al Qaeda maintains a safe haven, an intact leadership and the capability to plan further attacks". While this is true, his only solution is "to get out of Iraq, because you can’t win a war when you’re on the wrong battlefield". Unfortunately, this conflicts with an earlier NIE that said chaos would increase dramatically, were we to withdraw. Senator Clinton says, "Our involvement in Iraq continues to erode our position. It has damaged our alliances, and it has limited our ability to respond to real threats.” Once again, a true assessment of the current situation, but what real solution?

While the Iraq conflict may be about bigger things than our presence at this point, don't we still have a responsibility, in as far as we created the environment? At what point do intra-Iraqi conflics become their business and not ours? There is no easy answer, because our interests do not coincide with the interest of any Iraqi faction. Iraq is a manufactured country, with no real historical alliance among its disparate population. Our best bet is a federated Iraq, with equal share of oil revenues, but this is not going to happen.

The upshot is that this is an unbelieveably complex problem that requires real leadership, not political soundbytes. Add in other problems, at least equally if not more serious, like disease and global warming, and you're talking about the need for a real leader. Is that leader to be found among the current crop of presidential contenders?

One thing for sure is that President Bush has yet again failed to see the need for realism in this crisis, and has instead continued to justify his unwavering approach to foreign policy. As a result, Al-Qa'ida is at its strongest since 9/11. The Bush approach isn't working. Who out there has a plan?

24: The Movie, aka, Live Free or Die Hard

In 1988, Die Hard changed action movies forever. The intensity, scale, and pace were pushed to such extremes that the slogan "it will blow you through the back of the theater", which had seemed silly prior to viewing, turned out to be an accurate description of how it felt leaving the theater. It raised the bar for action movies, and 19 years later, it feels like we've seen it all.

Enter Live Free or Die Hard, the fourth entry in the franchise. The comparison to the original is inevitable, as is the result. No, it is not as good as the first one, nor should anyone have expected it to be. It is however, a worthy sequel, and the twelve year interval since the third one is no cause for worry; Bruce Willis is still John McClain. He's a little grimmer this time out, but he still jokes around while kicking bad guy butt.

So now that that's out of the way, what can be said about this movie without yoking it to the past? For one thing, I couldn't escape the feeling that if we were to swap out Bruce Willis for Keifer Sutherland, we would be watching 24. It had the same kind of bad guy, the same high tech toys for both criminals and the law, the same terrible plot with unimaginable consequnces, even the same kinds of sets. The only thing different was the fact that John McClain's funny.

Unfortunately though, funny in movies depends, at least to some degree, on the writing. Not that there weren't laugh out loud moments, but Mark Bomback's script seemed weak at times. Some jokes fizzled, some cowboy-talk seemed cliched, and unfortunately, Die Hard movies are great in part because of McClain's personality. Without strong dialogue, this aspect of the movie suffers. What should have been a great scene, featuring Kevin Smith in a (speaking) role as a computer hacker named "Warlock", instead was only a good scene.

The movie's plot involves a disgruntled former government worker, Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), who designed a top secret electronic backup system. Feeling unappreciated (awww!!) Gabriel exploits his own system to cause a meltdown of transportation, commerce, power, etc. The first step is killing all the hackers with enough knowledge to stop the "fire-sale", as it is known. The feds get involved in time to save the life of hacker Matt Farrell (Justin Long), thanks to the efforts of one John McClain. Needles to say, brain and brawn save the day.

Which brings us to the action, after all, the main reason we go to these movies. Most of it is stunning. It was reasonably well shot, but sometimes a little hyperkinetic for my taste. Were there many deeds and events that seemed highly unlikely? Yes. Did it matter? Not in the sense of not being able to suspend disbelief, but I couldn't help but feel inured after a while, and they lost some impact as a result. ("Oh, he fell off of an airplane, but he's OK! Of course he is, he's not really hurt.")

In sum, I'd say it's almost a given that if you're a fan of the franchise, you'll like this movie. And hey, if they didn't try to outdo themselves, we would be dissappointed. 4 out of 5 stars.