In one scene of Step Brothers, Will Ferrell tries to bury John C. Reilly alive, and the scene is an apt metaphor for most of Ferrell’s movies, including this one.
Like so many Saturday Night Live performers before him, Ferrell’s method is to wear out a gag’s welcome. He’ll crack a joke. It might even be a good joke that’s funny for a few minutes. Then he repeats the same joke ad nauseum until he beats it into the ground.
Ferrell usually doesn’t stop there. Then he exhumes the joke, cremates it, and places the remains in a decorative urn before finally scattering the ashes to the wind, just to make sure everyone got the point.
And so it goes with Step Brothers, the latest variation on Ferrell’s version of Peter Pan: the man who won’t grow up. The intended novelty here is that two of them are front and center. Ferrell is Brennan, a 40-something who acts like he’s 4 and still lives at home with his mom (Mary Steenburgen). Reilly is Dale, a 40-something who acts like he’s 4 and still lives at home with his dad (Richard Jenkins). The mom and dad get married, forcing the man-children to move in together. It’s not too hard to guess what happens from there.
Yet I would be lying if I said that I grimaced through all of Step Brothers. There are a handful of genuinely funny gags. When he’s not busy being obvious like his star, co-writer/director Adam McKay can actually stage his gags well. His depiction of Brennan’s disgustingly white bread clan is hilarious when they sing Guns n’ Roses “Sweet Child o’ Mine,” making it sound like an Up with People cover. And when the credits start to roll, don’t be so quick to leave, or you’ll miss the funniest joke of the film.
I’ve never been a huge RHPS fan, but the idea of remaking that very unique movie seems foolhardy to me. Why is it even necessary when the original film is still thrilling nutty midnight audiences decades hence? Can the world really take TWO interactive campy musical/sci-fi flicks?
The good news about RHPS: Lou Adler, who produced the original, is involved. The bad news: so is MTV.
I may take two or four jumps to the left of that one …
Then there’s the Hairspray sequel. I’m a fan of that franchise. I loved the 1988 John Waters original, would love to see the Broadway version, and I thought last year’s musical movie was a lot of fun. But I just don’t see where the story could go. It’s not like the story left a whole lot of unanswered questions.
I’m heartened by the fact that Waters is writing the treatment for the new movie, but still … it seems to me New Line Cinema wants this not because it’s a great idea, but because they smell money. And the world goes ‘round again.
What do you think of these? Are you as skeptical as I am? Or do these actually seem appealing?
With The Dark Knight still casting a long shadow at the box office (it’s already made more money than Batman Begins did in its entire run), two lesser-looking lights will try to make an impression.
Step Brothers: Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly try to recapture their Talladega Nights mojo in this comedy about two men with a major case of arrested development who move in with each other after their parents marry. Hilarity ensues, but only intermittently. Review posts tomorrow.
The X-Files: I Want to Believe: I have a nagging feeling that title is going to turn out to be ironic. Maybe it’s because I was never plugged into the show, but I just don’t sense a great clamor for this movie, except for its rabid fans, which I suspect aren’t that numerous. Am I wrong?
At the Victoria:
The early film version of Little Women, starring Katharine Hepburn and directed by George Cukor plays at the Cool Films series. You may recall that the less well regarded 1949 version of the film was originally on the schedule, and this very blog and its commenters were responsible for the change. Thanks again to Victoria for making the switch.
At the art houses:
The Neon opens When Did You Last See Your Father, an exploration of a father/son relationship, as Blake Morrison (Colin Firth) deals with his father Arthur’s terminal illness and imminent death. They’re hanging on to the doc Gonzo, about the Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas author Hunter Thompson, and the enduring Young@Heart.
The Little Art goes mainstream this weekend, with my favorite film of the year, WALL-E, and with the better of this summer’s female-centered films, Sex and the City, which far outshines Mamma Mia!, IMHO.
A number of times on this blog, myself and my readers have bemoaned just how rude movie audiences seem to be these days. The talking is incessant, the cell phones are annoying, the kids are loud, etc., etc.
But now comes the $100,000 question: WHY are people this way?
It seems to me that truly rude audiences are a relatively recent phenomenon. Sure, there have always been and always will be bad audience members, but they seem especially prevalent in recent years. Again, why?
I have a theory.
My observation is that rude movie audiences have gotten especially distracting in the last decade. That coincides with two things: the age of DVD and the age of cell phones.
The DVD effect is two-fold. First, it made buying movies more affordable, making people more inclined to stay at home, even moreso than in the VCR age. Second, it made living rooms more like movie theaters, with their high-quality picture and sound. Thus, the lines between the living room and the movie theater became blurred, and people became more inclined to behave the same way in both places.
The more immediate cause is, I think, the rise of the cell phone. Simply put, it gives people an opportunity to be rude that they didn’t have a decade ago. And because the cell phone has become the tool so many of us can’t dispense with, a whole host of irresponsible behaviors has grown along with it, including talking while driving, and talking while in movie theaters.
Before the ABBA musical came along, the phrase “mamma mia” always reminded me of the classic Alka Seltzer ad with the actor filming a commercial and blowing take after take saying, “Mamma mia, that’s-a spicy meatball.”
Unfortunately, after seeing Mamma Mia! the movie, I felt like I needed a good, tall fizzy glass of the stuff. I didn’t hate the film, but I will say that when the credits rolled, I was glad to get out of there.
I understand that the movie wants to be a fun, bubbly affirmation of life. It’s like the feminine version of the old Fast Times at Ridgemont High catch phrase: “Hey, chick - let’s party!” But while everyone around me was having a ball, I felt like slinking off to the corner and ducking out of sight.
However, the fact that the film is more than a little girlish isn’t what bothered me the most. I expected it to be an estrogen haven. However, I also expect musicals to be well filmed, and Mamma Mia! is not. I never imagined that a movie set in the Greek islands could look ugly, but Mamma Mia! does.
Why? Because the bulk of it wasn’t filmed on the Greek islands. Some scenes were filmed on location, but it was very obvious to me that most of the movie was shot on a soundstage, with digital backdrops filling in for the islands. Call me a purist, but that’s not my idea of romance.
The DVD selection remains as thin as half a rail, but there are two solid choices on the new release wall, both of them “based on a true story” crime pics:
21: This Vegas caper was much more entertaining than most critics said it was, buoyed by energetic direction and a solid cast featuring Jim Sturgess, Kate Bosworth, Kevin Spacey and Laurence Fishburne. Full review. GRADE: B+
The Bank Job: This British crime thriller is the rare Jason Statham movie with more on its mind than a kick to the groin. Several criminals are asked to break into a bank vault, not knowing what they’re stealing are photos of a British princess in a compromising position. Taut direction by Roger Donaldson makes this one crackle. GRADE: A-
When I read this afternoon that both Roger Ebert AND Richard Roeper had left the show that bears their name, I was struck by how sad I didn’t feel.
The show hadn’t been relevant in a long time, and I can tell you the exact date it stopped being relevant: Feb. 20, 1999, the day Gene Siskel died.
I don’t want to come down too hard on Roeper, an eminently decent man and a good writer - but he was simply never a movie guy. He was always the eager young cadet to Ebert’s seasoned old pro, whereas Siskel and Ebert were equals. Once that chemistry was gone, there was no recapturing it, no matter who sat in those theater seats.
Quite frankly, since Ebert was laid low by health issues that left him unable to speak, I’m surprised the show has lasted this long.
There’s some speculation about what kind of show might take its place. I’ve heard more than one person suggest that film writers David Poland (Movie City News) and Jeffrey Wells (Hollywood Elsewhere) have a show. These two know their movies, and they have a long-standing rivalry, just like Siskel and Ebert had, particularly in their early days.
Still, I think the chances of getting those two together are not much better than a snowball’s in Hades. Poland, in particular, seems to have no love lost for Wells, recently remarking on his blog: “I have no idea what Jeff is up to. I don’t read him, don’t talk to him. Last time I heard about him, he was still banned by a bunch of studios for incredibly bad behavior.”
After Poland got married recently, Wells shot off this missive: “When I was sick with possible blood poisoning a year and a half or two years ago Poland left a ‘get well’ phone message, so it seemed okay and symmetrical to send him a ‘congratulations and good for you’ e-mail a few months ago when I heard he was moving in a marital direction. Poland being Poland, he ignored it.”
The more pressing question to me is, do we even NEED TV for critics? Who turns to TV for reviews anymore, especially when the Internet gives us instant access to everyone from a legend like Andrew Sarris to little guys like me? I would be willing to bet a lot of people didn’t even know an Ebert and Roeper show was still on the air. (For all intents and purposes, it wasn’t.)
.jpg)
2008 Browns training camp
Having fun at the Clark County Fair
Fire in Park Layne
What do you think?
Be the first person to comment on Disowning 'Step Brothers'...