Even Without Edgar Wright, "Ant-Man" Turned Out Pretty Good

Ant-Man

Ant-Man, along with last year’s wildly successful Guardians of the Galaxy, definitely shows that Marvel is digging deep for new heroes to introduce. Audiences don’t seem to mind the B- and C-listers getting their own films because the movies wisely take a more comedic route. (By the way, I know Ant-Man is not consider

ed a B- or C-lister in the comic book world, but he definitely is in the movie world.) Guardians was easily the goofiest film Marvel has ever made, and Ant-Man often plays more like a comedy than a superhero action film, which is precisely the tone this movie needed to have to succeed.

This film has been a huge question mark for Marvel not only because of the lesser known main character, but also for some behind the scenes trouble. Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead) was well into the process of making this film when he dropped out. He realized he wasn’t going to be able to make the movie he wanted to make because Marvel has such a strict plan for the next few years. So Peyton Reed (Yes Man) was brought in. Nothing against Reed (especially since the movie turned out all right), but it doesn’t instill a lot of confidence to go from the director of Shaun of the Dead to the director of Yes Man. It would definitely be interesting to see what Wright would have ultimately done with the film, but it appears he left his stamp on enough of it so that what we see on the screen is a Wright-like film.

Most likely, the visual style of the film was sacrificed when Wright left (more on that in a bit), but the comedic tone of the film remained. Much like Shaun of the Dead, Ant-Man is about a very unlikely hero in Scott Lang (Paul Rudd), a convict who can’t seem to catch a break. Returning to a life of crime leads him to Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and the shrinking suit Pym has made. Then more comic book stuff happens, and Scott has to try to save the world, and you’ll probably see him again in other Marvel movies, and you get the idea.

Ant-Man sets itself apart from other Marvel movies by having a stronger emotional core than other comic book films. The emotional theme focuses on parents, specifically fathers, and how complicated it can be to protect their children, or in this case, daughters. Scott’s main goal is to get his life back on track so he can see his daughter, who sees him as a hero already. For Scott, it’s all about living up to an image his daughter has for him. Hank Pym, on the other hand, has kept his daughter Hope (Evangeline Lilly) so far away that she now resents him. Each man needs to prove himself to his daughter to have peace. These subplots were a welcome distraction from the save the world plotline, which is getting a bit tiresome in the Marvel world.

The emotional scenes never get too heavy, though, and the film in general is quite funny. Paul Rudd has a lot to do with that. He’s a natural for the reluctant hero part. But the comedy comes more from the gang of idiots he pals around with. The standout is Michael Peña, whose rambling stories are the comedic highlight of the film. They are also the scenes that felt the most like an Edgar Wright film.

Comedy aside, this is still a Marvel superhero movie, so the action and visuals have a lot to live up to. In this case, the visuals actually lead to comedy at times. When we’re zoomed in on the action, for instance, a child’s trainset turns into a real train bearing down on someone. Pull back and it becomes a pretty goofy sequence. When the action is taken seriously, it’s par for the course for Marvel. There’s nothing that stands out, aside from the goofiness of pulling back during action scenes. Edgar Wright could have possibly created some action scenes that would have stood out from the rest of the Marvel pack, but we’ll never know. The miniature stuff looks great, though. Overall, Ant-Man boasts some great visuals with decent action.

 Ant-Man could have been Marvel’s first big misstep since it started this takeover of Hollywood. But like Guardians, the risk paid off. Sure, the save the world plotline is flat out boring at this point, but that comes with the territory in a comic book movie. Ant-Man simply had to distinguish itself from the rest of the pack with comedy, and it completely succeeded. 

Ant-Man receives a:

"This Is 40" Minutes Too Long, but It's Still Pretty Funny

 

This Is 40 - Written and directed by Judd Apatow, starring Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann, Albert Brooks, Jason Segel, Megan Fox, John Lithgow, and Chris O'Dowd - Rated R

 

 

Judd Apatow has become a comedy juggernaut, though he has only directed four theatrical releases.  Many people were lukewarm (including me) to his last effort, Funny People, which was a bit more serious than his previous work.  With This Is 40, Apatow is definitely aiming for more comedy than drama, though there are still quite a few “real” moments in the film.  This isn’t going to replace Knocked Up or The Forty Year Old Virgin as his funniest film, but fans will most likely be pleased with this lengthy comedy.

 

This Is 40 is a spin-off from Knocked Up as it follows the married couple from that film, Pete (Paul Rudd) and Debbie (Leslie Mann), as they deal with aging, money, parenting, and everything else in life.  This is a stand-alone film, however.  You do not need to watch Knocked Up to appreciate it.  In fact, if you don’t pay close attention, you’ll miss the lone reference to the main characters from that previous comedy.  That was fine with me because I found the couple to be immensely funny in Knocked Up. 

 

Pete and Debbie basically go through one issue after another in this film, and it is usually handled in a funny, though serious, way.  The dialogue and references are all sharp and rapid, and most of the jokes work.  Paul Rudd is one of the best comedic actors out there and he continues his winning streak with this film (though I still think his earlier 2012 comedy, Wanderlust, is the funniest film of the year).  Leslie Mann has her moments and has great chemistry with Rudd.  Her character is also more sympathetic this time around, as she came off as kind of a shrew in Knocked Up.  Apatow’s kids (who he has with wife/star Leslie Mann) play the couple’s children, and they do a fine job, rarely drawing attention to the fact that they are only there because their parents made the movie. 

 

The supporting cast is pretty great, including Jason Segel, Megan Fox, Albert Brooks, John Lithgow, Robert Smigel, and plenty of others.  Chris O’Dowd (the cop from Bridesmaids) stood out the most, and Melissa McCarthy had a great scene as a concerned parent.  There are some cameos, as well, most notably Graham Parker, an obscure, aging rock star.  I honestly had never heard of Graham Parker before this film, and I found it odd how much of the film was devoted to him, although he does have a funny moment at Pete’s studio. 

 

As you can tell from the list of actors, This Is 40 kind of takes the kitchen sink approach and just throws a barrage of funny at you.  Most of it worked for me, so I can’t fault it.  But it can grow tiresome after two hours.  Yes, the same complaint that everyone has about Apatow’s other films is applicable here: it is too long.  I suppose Apatow just falls in love with certain scenes and can’t bring himself to cut them, but that’s what the DVD is for.  Of course, he’ll probably release an even longer cut when this comes out on DVD.  (I get the feeling Apatow won’t be happy until he has released a three-hour comedy.)  Two hours plus is really pushing it for a comedy.  I understand that he wants to keep the more serious moments that provide the real meat of the film in there, but if he wants to do that, he has to lose a bit.  One example, don’t have multiple performances from Graham Parker in your film.  Another example, Jason Segel’s personal trainer character was largely pointless.  A few laughs will be lost, but so will fifteen minutes. 

 

Overall, This Is 40 is a funny film, and it makes you care about the characters and what happens to them.  Is Apatow breaking new ground?  Absolutely not.  (He even relies on a fevered bike ride at the end of this film á la The Forty Year Old Virgin.)  But he doesn’t need to do something new and inventive if the characters are likable and they say more funny things than not.  I enjoyed it, and I think most people will, too.  You might be checking the time that last half-hour or so, but too much of a good thing isn’t that big of a problem.

"Dinner for Schmucks"

Dinner for Schmucks - Directed by Jay Roach, written by David Guion and Michael Handelman, starring Paul Rudd, Steve Carell, Jemaine Clement, Stephanie Szostak, and Zach Galifianakis - Rated PG-13

The Kurgan likes laughing at idiots.

Comedies about weirdoes, idiots, or otherwise flat out annoying characters always walk a fine line. That line is the difference between funny and unbearable. Dinner for Schmucks stayed on the funny side for me.

Schmucks is about a dinner party a rich executive throws in which underlings and colleagues invite the most idiotic person they can find and make fun of them, awarding the biggest idiot at the end of the night. The film is really just about the lead up to the titular dinner. This film is more about relationships. In this case, those relationships are those of Tim (Paul Rudd), Barry (Steve Carell), and Julie (Stephanie Szostak).

Tim is on his way up in the company, so that means it’s very important to bring the best idiot to dinner. Enter Barry, a happy simpleton who takes everything literally…oh and he makes “mouseterpieces”; more on those later. Barry commences to ruin Tim’s relationship with possible fiancé Julie…hilarity ensues.

This film really reminded me of Planes, Trains, & Automobiles. It’s not that there is a lot of travel in Schmucks, it’s that Carell and Rudd share the same troubled friendship as Steve Martin and John Candy. Carell just seems to intentionally mess up Rudd’s life. They play it that same as Martin and Candy did. Carell seems oblivious and even well-meaning, while Rudd becomes more and more angry. Let’s be clear, though, this comedy is nowhere near Planes. But Rudd plays the funny straight man pretty well to Carell’s zany, but redeeming idiot.

That factor is what put me on the positive side for this film. As far as laughs go, there are plenty, but they are not constant. What makes up for that are the likable characters. Rudd is a jerk at times, but I still wanted things to work out for him. Carell is weird and annoying, but I hoped for the best for him as well. This movie could have easily been mean spirited but it has a heart, and that saves it.

Some people might not share this opinion, though. Your enjoyment depends largely on your feelings toward Carell. He has a generally strange look in this film. I laughed at times just because of the faces he made. He also has a few ridiculous lines and at times just makes noises for laughs. I’m not saying all of it was funny, but I found myself laughing at him more often than not.

Carell’s “mouseterpieces” definitely make the character. Carell spends his free time (his day job is at the IRS) taking taxidermy mice and putting them in cute, and sometimes strange, scenes. The sheer oddness of it all should provide a few laughs, but the more unlikely scenes still have me laughing when I think back on them. My favorite was the “mouseterpiece” of a mouse finding his wife in bed with another mouse. A typically depressing situation made cute and funny by the use of dead mice.

That’s not where the weird ends with this film. The supporting cast is full of weirdoes. Zach Galifianakis (Hollywood’s go-to eccentric comedian since The Hangover) makes for a great quasi-villain for Carell. He is another actor who creates laughs for me from appearance alone. It helps that he is given free rein in this one, as a mind controlling idiot.

Jemaine Clement (HBO’s Flight of the Conchords) upstages the other weird characters as an egotistic artist. He may be the most ridiculous character in the film, but I found him consistently funny. But my favorite supporting character is David Walliams as the rich Swede that Rudd has to land for the company. He plays what is supposed to be a straight role with great eccentricity. His facial gestures had me laughing throughout and he’s given some great, and strange, lines such as, “That’s my wife’s favorite finger!” Walliams may not stand out for most, but if you pay close attention to him, you’ll see that his few short scenes contain some very funny moments.

That’s basically it for this film. Dinner for Schmucks isn’t a comedy classic, but it is a solid comedy in a summer that has largely been humorless. The film may not pay off much when it comes to the actual dinner (I thought the inclusion of puppet-wielding Jeff Dunham to be quite weak), but it makes up for it with strong main characters that are genuinely likable. That’s the trick to Schmucks. It’s a movie about making fun of idiots, but it doesn’t condone that. I’m glad that it doesn’t, because who wants to walk out of a comedy only to feel bad for laughing the whole time?