Maybe I'm Too Old, But "Dumb and Dumber To" Just Wasn't for Me.

Dumb and Dumber To

The look on Billy in 4C's face sums up my experience with this movie.

“We Should Stop Reviewing Comedies.”  That is the title of an article I wrote for my website over a year and a half ago, and I’ve stuck to it (aside from This Is the End, but I made an exception for that since it was an apocalyptic comedy).  After watching Dumb and Dumber To I felt compelled to break my own rule again.  The exception this time: a comedy sequel to a beloved movie from my youth. 

My argument for not reviewing comedies was basically that comedy is too subjective, and a critic’s sense of humor shouldn’t be held any higher than anyone else’s.  I still stand by that.  That said, I barely cracked a smile while watching this film, but others (and I’ve confirmed this based on a handful of positive reviews and plenty of comments on IMDb in support of the movie) will like it…maybe even love it.  I certainly d

on’t, but I’m not going to spend an entire review hating on a comedy that just didn’t strike my funny bone.  I am, however, going to spend an entire review wondering why this sequel felt so different that the first film…and I’ll probably hate on it a little too.

I love Dumb and Dumber.  Notice I used the present tense, “love,” not “loved”?  It is not a movie I aged out of enjoying.  In fact, I watched it a day after watching the sequel and still laughed aloud a few times.  It doesn’t make sense because this sequel features all of the original filmmakers.  It is written and directed by the Farrelly brothers and stars Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels.  It’s also similar in plot: two idiots go on a road trip and unwittingly get involved in a criminal plot.  This is no prequel a la Dumb and Dumberer (which the original filmmakers had nothing to do with).  It should be something I love.  Why isn’t it?

The obvious answer is time.  I’m older, which (supposedly) means that “dumb” comedies no longer appeal to me.  I think that would be correct if this was not a sequel to a movie I liked.  If this was an original movie that made this amount of money ($60 million as I’m typing this) and had defenders online, then I would simply think, “I must be too old for this.”  I am not too old for this type of comedy, though.  When I watch the stupid comedies from my youth, I still find them funny.  Chalk that up to nostalgia if you like, but I honestly still enjoy the majority of the comedies I liked fifteen years ago. 

Time, I think, actually is the answer, though.  The problem is that, while my comedic sensibilities have not changed, the filmmakers’ have.  Some have criticized the film because the stars, now in their fifties, come across as dirty old men rather than harmless buffoons.  I can see this argument, but I think it’s more than that.  Here’s an example.  In the new film, Harry (Jeff Daniels) and Lloyd (Jim Carrey) yell out to a female scientist, “Show us your tits!”  This was seen as a misogynistic line by many (rightfully so), but it is in keeping with their behavior.  In the first film, Harry comments on a woman passing by: “Check out the funbags on that hosehound!”  Definitely misogynistic as well, but at least it’s more original that what a cliché construction worker would yell at a passerby.  Plus, the line was given after they were talking about being classy to show that they are, in fact, not classy at all.  The point is that the Farrelly brothers have gotten lazier.  Their characters have always been misogynistic, but they used to get a pass because the writing was a bit wittier and more innocent. 

That is how I felt across the board with this film.  The jokes and the people are the same, but the effort is gone.  I loved Dumb and Dumber for the quirkier moments.  The physical gags don’t crack me up any longer (Harry’s tongue stuck a ski lift just doesn’t do it for me these days), but the smaller moments of each actor’s performance still make me laugh (Lloyd laughingly saying, “Yeah ha ha!” when asked if he sold a dead bird to a blind kid.  Now all the nuance is gone.  Sure, they were always cartoonish, but they were tethered to reality at least a little bit.  They’ve gone full blown cartoon now.  Give me the literal toilet humor of the first film any day over Harry and Lloyd glowing from radiation poison after bathing near a nuclear power plant.  These guys were not immortal the first time around. 

I could go on and on like this with examples of gags that worked the first time that were duplicated to lesser effect this time around.  But that would be too exhausting, and I think you get why I don’t like it by now.  I’ll finish by repeating that the film might, and does, work for others, but I can’t appreciate it as something separate from the beloved first film.  I guess I just haven’t aged enough comedically…and I hope I never do.

Dumb and Dumber To receives a:

I Loved "Interstellar." Keep Reading to Find Out Why.

Interstellar

Interstellar is a rare film for writer/director Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight trilogy, Inception).  His films are notoriously cold and technical, though they excel when it comes to scope and visual beauty.  Emotion is usually quite lacking in his films.  This is not to say that there is no drama in a Nolan film.  There is emotional drama in everything he has done, but, at least for me, it has never been this effective.  Surprisingly, Nolan has found true emotion in a film that takes place largely in deep space, the loneliest possible environment. 

Interstellar is essentially a father-daughter story about a pilot/engineer (Matthew McConaughey) who missed his chance to go to outer space and his daughter (Mackenzie Foy), who feels abandoned by him when he does get the chance to leave.  McConaughey’s reason for leaving is pretty justifiable, though: he’s going to look for a new planet for the human race.  There are same vague comments about what has happened to Earth in this film (world wars over food, for one), but the real problems are just beginning with a blight that has wiped out most of our food supply except for corn, but corn might not be safe for long.  The film certainly makes Earth look miserable, though it’s done on a small scale.  We never get the broad view of what the world is like.  In fact, there are really only two locations for the film on Earth: a farm and a hidden NASA compound.  While a larger explanation of the status of the entire planet would be interesting on its own, it is not the point.  The film is called Interstellar after all.  You know McConaughey is going to leave; the question of the film is, how long will he be gone?

Leaving a child behind for an uncertain amount of time is emotionally charged already, but when the science of gravity and black holes is added, it becomes downright devastating.  Apparently, gravity near a black can mess with time.  An hour on, say, a planet near a black hole, could last years elsewhere.  (For the record, I have no idea why that is, but scientists claim this is true.)  This possible problem coupled with the fact that McConaughey and his fellow astronauts cannot send messages (they can only receive them) back to Earth makes his absence that much more heartbreaking.  This film, though very much science-fiction, is actually a love letter to Nolan’s daughter (the working title was Flora’s Letter), and you get the impression that going off to make these giant movies might be his version of leaving Earth while his daughter grows up.  It is quite clear that Nolan wanted to tug at the heartstrings with this one and, for me, at least, he accomplished his goal.  How else can you explain why a review of a science-fiction film written by an admitted dork has gone three paragraphs without gushing about visual effects and cool, weird robots? 

The emotional impact of the film was surprising, and it made me care about the characters in a Nolan film more than ever before.  It was truly unexpected.  The great visual effects and general cinematic excellence of the film?  That was expected.  This is what has been troubling me when it comes to reviewing Interstellar.  My first attempt ended up being a bit of a rant about why people should appreciate the movie (read it here if you want), and I explained how annoyed I was with people (critics and film buffs alike) calling the film “ambitious” in both negative and positive terms.  “Ambitious” is far too loaded of a word to use to describe any film (and I will attempt to stop using that word in my reviews from here on out).  It only implies that someone tried to do something.  Well, of course they did.  Interstellar is not an example of someone “trying.”  It is an example of Christopher Nolan and the rest of the filmmakers doing exactly what they set out to do: create an entertaining science-fiction film that adheres to reality as much as possible while also engaging the viewer on an emotional level.  And yes, it all looks great and should be seen on the biggest screen available (full disclosure: I saw it on a regular-sized screen at Tell City and still loved it).  My point is that it has become moot to discuss the technical brilliance of a Nolan film.  Let’s just assume the brilliance and move on.

Interstellar is much more interesting thematically, anyway.  The possibilities of life after Earth stayed with me, and I found, upon reflection, that the film was deeper than I initially thought.  It can be seen as a father-daughter love story, a save-the-Earth space thriller, a plea to stick with film instead of going digital, etc.  Any story that can be viewed symbolically always gets a few extra points from me.  The literal story of the film is more than enough, though.  Exploring deep space has always been more interesting to me on the human loneliness level than the visual level.  Normally, films in which characters are so far out in space are set in a distant future or world in which it is normal to be out there (like Star Wars or Guardians of the Galaxy).  This film keeps it grounded, so to speak, in reality.  Characters have to deal with being away from their loved ones.  This is rarely the focus in such films, and it is refreshing to see here. 

There's quite a bit of this.

Because of the focus on love and loneliness, the cast of Interstellar had a tough task.  They had to cry quite a bit and make the audience care about why they were crying.  To top it off, their characters were slightly one-dimensional in that everyone is simply trying to accomplish the goal of sustaining the human race.  Some would see this as a flaw, but I imagine (or hope) that people tasked with saving all of us would be singularly focused with the task at hand.  Because of this, there’s nothing terribly memorable about each character.  It’s up to the actors to bring their natural charisma to the role to make you care about them.  That said, Interstellar has an amazing cast.  McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Michael Caine, and everyone involved gets the job done. 

This review has been a long time coming because I loved the film on so many levels, and I wanted to see if that wore off a few days after watching it.  It didn’t, but I have still put off writing this in fear of not mentioning everything that was great about it.  Which reminds me: there are these amazing (and hilarious) robots in the film that look like the monolith from 2001.  The main robot, TARS, is actually my favorite character, now that I think about.  I’m sure I’m forgetting some other things, and I know I’m ignoring a lot of issues others have with the film (I will concede that McConaughey’s character definitely showed favoritism to his daughter and largely ignored his son, and that was never acknowledged in a fulfilling way).  It can’t be helped, though.  Interstellar is just such an awesome science-fiction film, and I am an unabashed fan of anything sci-fi.  I’m still trying to digest all of it (obviously), but it’s certainly going to be one of my favorite films of the year, and it’s definitely going to be a film I revisit over and over again.

Interstellar receives a:

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

"C'mon, TARS, let's go bust up the robot mafia."

I can't wait for the sequel in which McConaughey and his robot buddy, TARS, travel through the galaxy fighting crime.

Everyone seemed very much okay with Wes Bentley dying, didn't they?

Some have complained about the exposition in this film (and all of Nolan's films), but I like it. Is it weak storytelling?  Oftentimes exposition is, but here I don't think so.  I like that the characters explained the science and their plans every now and thing because that's how the world works.  How often do you do a job in which the manager/planner/whatever simply assumes you know what's going on?  Life deserves explanation sometimes.  Sometimes, it does not.  

Which brings me to all of these 2001 comparisons.  Who said that this was supposed to be just like 2001?  I never assumed that.  And I certainly didn't assume Nolan was trying to be Kubrick here, but many people have.  I suppose that's due to their nature of picking up on implications rather than looking at objective facts.  Nolan is not Kubrick and is not trying to be.  Interstellar is not 2001 and is not trying to be.  We can enjoy both of these directors/movies, by the way.  Just don't bring the same expectations to both.  If I went in to Interstellar wanting everything left to interpretation, I would leave extremely disappointed, and vice versa.  I'll never understand why some people who love one movie in a genre take up some unwarranted fight to crap all over anything else that comes after.  I just really like movies.  I guess I'm simple that way.  This doesn't mean I don't hate some movies, by the way.  Stay tuned for my Dumb and Dumber To review for proof...

"Mockingjay," Despite Being the First Part of a Cash Grab, Is Pretty Good and Might Even Make You Think

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1

The Hunger Games series has become popular enough (among diverse groups, not just teenagers) that comparisons to other young adult series make less and less sense.  The first (The Hunger Games) and second film (Catching Fire) were still similar to other properties because of the love triangle and youth contest aspect, but things change with Mockingjay – Part 1.  To be fair, it is similar to other properties in that they decided on a cash grab by dividing the last film into two parts (more on that later), but the subject matter of the film has certainly changed.  First, no more Games.  This is refreshing since the only real problem I had with Catching Fire was that it was a little too similar to the first film.  Now, they took that fire of rebellion from the first film and dove right in.  This is no longer a young adult series about figuring out your place in the world and picking the right boyfriend; this is a full blown war film with brutal elements of physical and mental warfare.  And the series is better for that brutality because it gives the audience, young and old, something to think about in regards to the real world.

Mockingjay picks up where Catching Fire left off.  By bringing an end to the Hunger Games, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) unwittingly started a revolution between the Capitol and the rest of the Districts (with District 13 taking charge).  Now Katniss is left to dwell on the last Games, shouldering the blame for Peeta being left behind.  But the leader of District 13, President Coin (Julianne Moore), and past-Gameskeeper/current-revolutionary Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) want Katniss to be the face of the revolution.  They want her to be the Mockingjay that rallies the rest of the Districts to fight the Capitol.  What follows is a mix of war and propaganda that reminded me of the “Join up!” scenes from Starship Troopers.

The use of propaganda in the film is interesting because it takes what could have been a cookie-cutter revolution film and turns it into something a bit more thought-provoking.  It’s not that revolutions aren’t interesting, but how many films do we really need that simply state, “Autocratic rulers bad, common people good”?  I think everyone, even the youth of the world, understand that.  The use of propaganda shows that war isn’t just about the physical battlefield.  On top of that, it brings up questions about the ethics of propaganda.  Katniss is first tasked with filming a revolution commercial in front of a green screen.  This goes as badly as you can imagine.  Unfortunately, the film plays it for laughs rather than commentary.  No one thought it unethical to fake a triumphant war moment for Katniss.  (Slight SPOILER with the rest of this paragraph and the caption of the picture below.)  And when they do decide she should actually be involved with the war, it’s not because they want it to be real, it’s because Katniss isn’t a good actress and needs a real moment to respond to.  This is where the film is at its darkest without even acknowledging it.  Katniss goes into the field and her presence leads to an attack in which many people are killed.  This spurs the propaganda video the revolutionaries need.  The problem here is that no one points out that the attack would not have happened if Katniss hadn’t been there.  Hundreds of people are killed for the sake of a viral video for their revolution, and no one bats an eye. 

"Now Katniss, you're absolutely sure that nothing bad will happen to us because of your visit, right?"

That is not to say that Katniss doesn’t accept blame in the film.  She blames herself for Peeta’s capture.  What is upsetting is that she could not have possibly saved him, but she could have decided not to go into the field and be bomb-bait for hundreds of people.  She has no issues with that and simply chalks the attack up to Capitol evilness.  Katniss should be a little more skeptical at this point since she’s been used as a pawn by others for two films now.  This is possibly overthinking it all, and hopefully more issues like this are focused on (and if they stick to the book, they will be) in the second part.  Still, it seems like someone should have at least been angry about what caused the attack instead of sitting around patting each other on the back for creating such stirring propaganda.

The propaganda obviously brings up plenty of issues in the film, but it is also a bit of a weakness, as well.  It isn’t just Katniss making videos.  President Snow (Donald Sutherland, looking as crazy-eyed evil as ever) gives speeches throughout, and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) gives a series of interviews trying to dissuade everyone from fighting.  What this means is that a large portion of the film is presented on screens.  So the audience is basically watching videos along with the characters of the film.  There really isn’t a way around this, but it’s easy to see why some might label this film “slow” or even “boring.”  This might be where younger audiences split with the older.  I’m not sure the propaganda issues that came to my mind will be what younger viewers focus on.  Regardless, watching characters watch screens is not visually compelling cinema. 

This brings me to my only true issue with this film: it should not be a two part event.  It’s not that this film drags on, it just repeats itself at times.  For instance, Katniss visits the bombed out District 12 near the beginning of the film to see the true extent of the Capitol’s atrocity, and later in the film she is sent back to District 12 to…see the true extent of the Capitol’s atrocity, but this time on camera!  It seemed like they could have killed two birds (mockingjays?) with one stone with that scene.  Once the second film comes out, I imagine the total running time of Mockingjay will reach around four hours.  That would be far too long for a single movie in this series, of course, but I think the story of this final book could easily be pared down to a three hour movie.  This just felt too much like a cash grab from the studio.  It doesn’t take away from my enjoyment of Mockingjay – Part 1 or anything.  It’s just that we’re going to end up with two “pretty good” movies when there might have been a great one. 

Speaking of great, everything that has made this series beloved is back for this third installment.  All of the performances are fine once again.  The new additions are welcome; Julianne Moore is a perfect choice for Coin, and it was nice to see Marhashala Ali (House of Cards) as Boggs.  There is a bit less action this time around, but the war scenes are handled quite well.  Director Francis Lawrence has truly given this series a signature look and that continues with this film.

Most importantly, Mockingjay shows how this series has grown up.  It’s a movie aimed at the young, but it is filled with adult issues and ideas.  In fact, there is an argument to be made that this could be rated R.  There are quite a few scenes of brutal violence, and the body count is extremely high.  And Finnick’s speech late in the film, though it is ignored by the characters (and most likely, the audience) reveals some very disturbing things that he was subjected to in the Capitol.  I honestly think if the film had focused on what he was saying a bit more, the rating may have changed.  This is all a positive, by the way.  Even though the propaganda scenes left me wanting more conflict, and the film repeats itself, it’s still a very enjoyable and rewarding experience.  The fact that a movie meant for people half my age made me think this much is a testament to how good this series is.  It’s just too bad we have to wait an entire year to see it end.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 receives a:

An Even-minded (Hopefully) Rant in Response to the Internet's Hatred of "Interstellar"*

*Note: This actually started off as my review of Interstellar, but it quickly devolved into responding to some negative stuff I came across online in videos and IMDb message boards.  I usually only passingly refer to that stuff in a review, but I feel a bit passionate about this movie, so here's 1,500+ words about it.  I'll get around to a review in a bit.  Also, this rant is inspired partly by the message boards for Dumb and Dumber To.  I went to those boards hoping to find the kind of hate I found on the Interstellar boards.  Not to disagree with, but to sympathize with as I thought that movie was abysmally unfunny.  What did I find?  The majority of the posts were defending the movie telling the haters (i.e. me) that we set our expectations to high and should just take it easy and enjoy  the comedy.  I'll explain why that situation is different than this one in my review of Dumb and Dumber To.  But seriously, internet, that's the movie you defend?

Watch out, McConaughey, you might step into one of those mythical "plot holes."

Ambitious.  A technical masterpiece.  Breathtaking visuals. Blah blah blah.  It seems like Christopher Nolan films have now reached a point that the review, positive or negative, has to state these things.  It always surprises me that people who hate his films will praise Nolan’s work as much as people who love them before they turn their sights on the “plot holes” and other “problems” the film has.  Interstellar is seemingly given this treatment simply because Christopher Nolan directed it.  Nolan, to be fair, kind of brings this on himself.  He has this super-serious quality to him (he wears a suit nearly every day on his sets), he is very secretive about his projects (he reportedly would not let some cast members keep a copy of the script before filming), and he has made enormously popular films (The Dark Knight trilogy, Inception).  He’s all but asking people to nitpick his work and hold his films to a higher standard.  That said, I am one of those people who expect a lot from Nolan’s work, and I found “Interstellar” to be one of the best films of the year, on both a technical and emotional level.

Interstellar is labeled as ambitious for multiple reasons.  First, it’s a film about saving the human race.  Second, it mixes complex science with emotion.  Because of this second aspect, many have labeled the film “too” ambitious, implying that Nolan is unable to resolve any questions put forth by this film.  This is incorrect, however, because there are not that many questions in the first place.  The main query of the film is, “How can the human race survive beyond the planet?”  Interstellar provides the answer to that question.  Detractors simply don’t like the answer given or are not following the film closely enough to pick up on other “answers.”  That is fine, by the way, as the answer of the film is arguably cheesy and sentimental.  It’s just annoying to see a word like “ambitious” used to negatively describe something.  If you don’t like it, fine.  Don’t sugarcoat it to the point that it sounds like you can’t make your mind up.  Because, honestly, what film out there is not “ambitious”?  Are the rest of the movies made by a bunch of slackers who don’t ask and answer questions, or who don’t care if their film is successful or not?    

Before I go on, let me explain my defensive posture for this film.  I watched Interstellar over a week ago and loved it.  It did leave my head spinning a bit, though.  The science of the film along with some stuff about five dimensions and whatnot had me a bit confused.  So I decided to check online for thoughts and theories about the film.  I was surprised to find that the internet movie community (at least the loud part of the community) hated the film or were very dismissive of it.  Many people point to “plot holes” as the main reason for the film being “stupid.”  I watched a video by Screen Junkies on YouTube (not the height of criticism, I know, but certainly a good source for the opinions of the internet movie community) in which the majority of the participants (four out of five) disliked the movie (though they all acknowledged that it was very pretty and ambitious).  In that video, one person talks about a “plot hole” involving a character’s evil actions.  This character turning evil was a “plot hole” to him because (SPOILER) that person had been called “the best of humanity” by another character.  So his rationale is that when it is stated on screen by a character, it must be true.  First off, this logic is incorrect because the character is a person, and people are often wrong when judging another’s character.  Second, why do we take one character’s line as gospel, but dismiss other characters’ lines because we think their logic is “stupid”?  So only certain scientists (the majority of the characters are scientists) are to be trusted?  It’s never established which scientists are to be paid attention to and which are to be ignored. 

Am I being nitpicky with my mini-rant above?  Absolutely, and that’s the point.  It is okay to hate a movie, but to judge it based on the director or how it is being presented to the public is ridiculous.  There is no reason why Interstellar should be picked apart to this degree.  Some claim that since the film is serious and asks big questions, then it should be held under a magnifying glass.  I agree if that scrutiny is for the science that the film almost brags about.  But no one is making any substantial claim to the science being wrong (and people like Stephen Hawking support the film).  Instead, they take issue with the plot.  They question why the characters are going to a risky planet, even though the characters discuss such issues at length on screen!  They complain about the blight in the film and wonder why they don’t just fix the blight when the film has established there is no solution (that information they ignore).  The equivalent of this would be like watching Star Wars and taking issue with Luke leaving with Obi Wan after his aunt and uncle are killed.  “Shouldn’t Luke stay home and deal with the funeral and estate of Owen and Beru?”  “Is he really just going to take off with some crazy hermit on a space adventure?”  Both of these are questions you can certainly ask.  You can even dislike the movie for Luke’s decisions.  But you don’t get to claim it’s a “plot hole” that makes the movie stupid.  Disagreeing with a character’s actions is not a “plot hole,” it’s just something you disagree with. 

The other problem (internet) people have with the movie is the time paradox created by the ending.  (SPOILERS, obviously)  So it turns out that the wormhole they go through was actually created by humans in the future, but how do the humans of the future exist without the wormhole?  There is no explanation for this, which is why the word “paradox” exists in the first place.  Nearly every movie with time travel has this element (see Terminator).  It just comes with the territory of science-fiction and time.  But I would argue that this film at least tries to explain it (Terminator never does; we just accept it) with all the fifth dimension stuff after McConaughey goes through the black hole.  He enters a place where time is a physical object that can altered.  Still, how does he get to this fifth dimension without the wormhole?  I don’t know…science?  Seriously, though, when you start nitpicking films that feature time travel/alteration you’ve entered troll land.  It is science-fiction, after all.  Sure, Nolan wears a suit, and his films are usually super-serious, but he’s still not claiming to be making 100% realistic movies.  He’s trying to make entertaining, interesting films grounded in reality and science.  If you don’t find them entertaining or interesting, fine, but don’t spout off about “plot holes” and paradoxes in this film while you sing the praises of whatever Marvel movie comes out next.  Full disclosure, I love the Marvel movies, but they get a pass because they are meant to be “fun,” and Nolan’s films get picked on because they don’t feature enough comedy.  Speaking of which, when is the internet going to turn on the Marvel universe, anyway?  Now that it’s beloved by seemingly everybody, isn’t it time for the internet to despise it?  That seems to be what’s going on with Nolan these days.  He makes a movie the internet loves (The Dark Knight), and his next few movies receive more hatred than any other films in the genre.

To finish up this messy response to internet hatred of a film I obviously really liked, let me just state that maybe we should be more thankful of Nolan’s films and less nitpicky.  Everyone goes on and on about the lack of originality in Hollywood, yet here’s Nolan directing films based on original scripts.  Sure, he is obviously influenced by other films, but at least Interstellar wasn’t a comic book or old TV show first.  I want him to continue to make “ambitious” sci-fi movies about new things that I don’t already know about.  I love all of the comic book movies coming out, but is anyone truly surprised by anything that happens in them?  Were you shocked when the Avengers put their differences aside and saved the world?  I had no idea what Interstellar was really about until I watched it.  I knew the ending of The Avengers before they even announced the movie: the good guys win.  Once again, I’m okay with the Marvel movies, but why heap so much fun-loving praise on them while we try to destroy one of the only big studio film’s not tied to Disney or some other existing property?  As I’ve been saying, it’s fine by me if you hate Interstellar, just hate it for the right reasons (not that I would agree with any of those reasons…).