"Out Cold": "Casablanca" as a stoner snowboarding comedy.

*I’ll explain a bit about both movies, but this article will be much easier to follow if you’ve seen both movies. So...SPOILERS.

Casa Rick pointing his gun sort of up Cold Rick's ass was unintentional when I made this. 

It probably would have made a lot more sense to write about Casablanca (and Out Cold, actually) before Valentine’s Day, but...I didn’t. I guess if there’s a topical tie-in, it would be looking back at a classic movie (guess which one I mean) around Oscar time, but it’s late for that, too. Honestly, I decided to write about these movies because Out Cold came on HBO a couple weeks ago, and I remembered how much I liked it (even if I do acknowledge it’s not a very good movie). As I watched it, I remembered that it was actually a remake/rip-off/homage(?) to Casablanca. And I bought the crazy ultimate edition (it came with a passport holder and luggage tag!) of that film years ago and haven’t watched it since. In other words, I’m writing about these two movies just because. Enjoy.

Out Cold: Casablanca, but with snowboarding, sex with hot tubs, and lesbian chat rooms.

Out Cold is basically just an updated '80s ski movie in which a ragtag group has to save their town from an evil rich guy who wants to ruin it. For reasons unknown (I couldn’t find any, anyway, and I watched this with the fucking audio commentary), it is also a loose remake of Casablanca. Let’s get into the similarities.

Both films feature a lovesick protagonist named Rick (for the rest of the article, Out Cold’s Rick will be Cold Rick and Casablanca’s will be Casa Rick), who is known as the coolest guy in his remote town. They both had flings with a woman and thought they had met the love of their life, but the woman disappeared without an explanation, leaving them bitter. Just as Rick seems to be dealing with his lost love, she shows back up...with a fiance/husband. Rick is left to decide if he should help the couple or try to break them up so he can reclaim his love. Ultimately, he decides to help them get away so they can live happily ever after while he stays behind.

Aside from the basic plot similarities, here are more things I noticed, in no particular order (as usual, it wouldn't be one of my articles without part of it in bold for no reason thanks to blogger):

• Cold Rick’s lost love is French, a reference to the Paris setting of Casablanca’s doomed relationship.
• At one point Cold Rick sports a tuxedo identical to the one famously worn by Casa Rick. 
• The closeted bartender Lance could be Louis, mainly because Lance, like Louis, talks constantly about trying to get with women, and then there’s the line, “If I was her I’d be getting with every dude on this mountain,” which is similar to something Louis says about how he’d be interested in Casa Rick if he were a woman. 
• Both Ricks are kind of dicks, especially to other women who are interested in them. 
• Both Ricks notice their lost love because of a song. 
• The plane flying over Jason London and Galfianakis is an homage to the scene when the plane flies over Bogart and Rains in the beginning and end of the film.
• Casa Rick is given a backstory in which it is revealed he is a freedom fighter at heart. He's also shown to be cool and collected and deserving of respect. With Cold Rick, aside from Galifianakis flat out saying he's meant to run the mountain (we're never shown or told why [more on this in Random Thoughts]) and being good at snowboarding, there's no reason for him to get the respect he gets. And he damn sure isn’t as cool as Bogart.
• The amount of drinking is actually about the same. If they showed all the implied weed smoking, that might be on par with the cigarette smoking too.
• Both other men are established as being good dudes, but with Casablanca, there are at least a few scenes between Rick and Laszlo. In Out Cold, they barely even meet. Not to mention, the fiance in Out Cold is a non-character. Sure, he has a few lines, but he's oblivious to what happened with Rick and Anna. Laszlo knows what happened and even asks Rick to take Ilsa away, because all he wants is for her to be safe. This is what convinces Rick to help him. Out Cold guy just exists, and that's good enough for Cold Rick.
• Casa Rick doesn't have a love interest that makes more sense living near him (although who knows if that lady he gets rid of near the beginning is a good woman or not). His sacrifice is greater. Cold Rick is just like, “Yeah, she should stay with her fiance. I've got Jenny here anyway. Even though, at this point, she should tell me to go fuck myself.”
• “Of all the bars in all the ski towns in Alaska, why did she have to come to this one?”
• “We'll always have Pedro O'Horny's.”

But some aspects don’t work as well or make much sense. With Casa Rick, he was doing something noble: saving a freedom fighter from Nazis. Not to mention Ilsa didn’t know Laszlo was dead when she was with Casa Rick in Paris. With Cold Rick, Anna was cheating on her fiance with Cold Rick. And her fiance is simply a doctor/pilot in a wheelchair. He’s not some noble hero fighting injustice in the world. How lame would Casablanca had been if Casa Rick was sympathetic to Laszlo because Laszlo had a limp or something? To be fair, Out Cold shoehorns in Majors disapproving of Anna’s fiance simply because he’s in a wheelchair, but it’s one line near the end of the movie, and Anna never says anything about it (also, her fiance must have superhuman hearing, because after Majors’s line about him being a cripple, the fiance looks down and gives him the finger). So suddenly Rick is saving the couple Majors? The guy can still find them, and Anna didn’t seem like she wanted to disown her father or anything. Basically, the movie just needed Anna and her fiance to fly away because that’s what happened in Casablanca, and that’s just lazy. Plus, Majors is a dick, but I don’t think he qualifies as a Nazi dick.

If you look into the whole situation with Majors and his daughters it makes less and less sense. So they end up making it seem like he’s terrible to them, and they both want to ruin things for him and get away from him. Inga does this by having...public sex? And Anna and her fiance help the locals destroy the presentation to the investors. But why are Majors’s daughters there in the first place? They’re not little kids. Do they go to all of his potential new properties and try to ruin them? Why was this not mentioned. And until the last few scenes, neither Anna nor Inga seem to dislike their father. I just don’t understand why they didn’t fix with this with some short scenes of dialogue earlier in the movie. Just have Inga tell someone earlier that her stepfather insists on dragging her to all these places, and she hates him for it. Have a scene between Majors and Anna in which they argue about Anna’s fiance. It wouldn’t take much more screen time to establish these things that seem to happen randomly at the end. But perhaps I’m just expecting too much out of a stoner snowboarder movie.

At first, when I realized what was going on I thought it was kind of cool. Here’s a throwaway snowboard comedy that’s only truly memorable quality is the introduction of Zach Galifianakis. But it’s also a kind of remake of Casablanca. At least that’s showing the filmmakers’ will to be different. But when I rewatched Casablanca, it made me start to hate the Out Cold Rick (from here on out referred to as Cold Rick) even more than I already did. Casa Rick has his problems, but Cold Rick is kind of cruel to Jenny. And it’s infuriating that Jenny is so understanding and accepting of everything Cold Rick does. Cold Rick is bad enough on his own, but when you look at him compared to Casa Rick, he’s kind of a piece of shit.

Of course I’m thinking, and writing, way too much about this, but that’s actually a testament to what a good idea it was to make Out Cold like Casablanca. I truly doubt I would have revisited this movie to this extent if not for that connection. It’s unfortunate that it wasn’t thought out a bit better, but hats off to the filmmakers for trying.

Random Thoughts

I didn't square this up at all, but I had to use it. Perfect caption, caption guy.

Out Cold

I watched with the audio commentary (don't judge me) and the directors (who decided to include their grandmother in the commentary to zero comedic effect) seem to have never even seen Casablanca. So they didn't provide much insight about the influence of that film.

They did, however, mention many times how this was originally going to be rated R. I just don't understand why an R rated version wasn't released on DVD. I guess it didn't make enough money to warrant the cost of creating another edit. I think this could have been a Saving Silverman situation and vastly improved the movie.

So there's a deleted flashback or opening scene with Papa Muntz and Rick. Papa not only tells Rick he wants him to run the mountain, he also reveals that he started the resort with Rick's dad. The scene also shows the inspiration for the statue of Papa. Why leave this short scene out of a 90 minute movie? The only thing I can think is that Papa also talks about hating the idea of the mountain being sold and turned into a tourist trap. With that line in the movie, Rick looks pretty bad buying into Majors's shit so easily. But still, the line, “Bull Mountain, don't go changin’!” is known by everyone, and Galifianakis reminds Rick that Papa wanted him to run the mountain. So that opening scene should have stayed. What should have changed was everyone's reaction to Rick becoming Majors's bitch. They complain about the changes, but they should be questioning Rick much more intensely. “Why are you helping with the very thing Papa hated, Rick, you dick?!”

That said, what better way to open a movie than with a crazed David Koechner giving some exposition?

One of the only movies I can think of that features Goldschlager.

David Denman's character still cracks me up. And the fact that he ends up coming out at the end makes it less offensive than you might expect from a comedy from fifteen years ago.

That said, Galifianakis does make a joke about having “fag practice” at one point in the film, so there are still some problematic elements.

Is it racist that the one black character is bad at snowboarding, even though he lives and works at a ski resort? Is that a stereotype? Wait, am I racist for even wondering? I'll just stop now.

The first few minutes made me worried that this was going to be mainly scenes of snowboarding with a plot peppered in. That is kind of the case, but it does tone down in the middle of the movie.

Jenny is more of a male fantasy than real character. Throughout the course of the movie, she pretty much tells Rick that she'll be waiting for him to figure everything out. She's cool with it when he stands her up, and she's fine when his ex shows up and he tries to win her back. And she still ends up with him, even though he only chooses her because his ex was no longer an option. I wish she would have told him to fuck off at the end.

And Lee Majors as himself.

Maybe I just don't like Rick as a character. He is kind of a dick to everyone, and it's unclear why everyone thinks so highly of him. I don't hate him, but I definitely did not find him very likable, either, especially in regards to his treatment of Jenny.

The Pig Pen fantasy sequence is odd as it is the only fantasy element of the film, and it serves no purpose. I did find parts of it funny, though.

This was my first introduction to Galifianakis. I think he's one of the better parts of the movie. His reaction to the spinning car prank is still a highlight.

I think of this movie every time I hear “Island in the Sun.”

Lee Majors presented as a skier is the most ridiculous part of this movie, and this movie features a fantasy sequence with Solid Gold dancers.

That random insert shot of Koechner asking Pig Pen if he's ever been on a “lesbian chat room” always gets me. And his answer of “yeahIdon'tknow” as one word has become part of my daily vocabulary. I'm a strange person.

“Man, I love chicks! And chicks love me so it's all good!”

“It was called the '80s. Ford was President. Nixon was in the White House. And FDR was running this country into the ground!”

The funny thing about Koechner's crazy rant is that he's right.

Pig Pen just types “Awesome!” for nearly every response in the “lesbian” chatroom.

I love this movie, but the middle of it is a bit of a slog.

Koechner should have had at least ten more minutes of screen time.

There are some odd moments that make me laugh:

Majors talking to Rick and then giving him a card that says exactly what he just said.

The two guys who high five after posting an eviction notice.

Majors saying, “That's a $300 hat, bitch!”

“So what's up?” “Guard duty.” “Nice!” *High five

“So there's a few bad apples! So my daughter's a whore! But this is a good deal!”

It's rare when a movie goes into the gag reel before the credits rather than during them, but whatever.

Is there a version of this movie where Jenny ends up with Pig Pen? She flashes him, he’s nuzzling her on the poster, they’re hanging out getting high on the couch at the party, and she tells Rick that Pig Pen told her about Anna showing up. Obviously they talk and flirt with each other. Was there more there? I wish there was. I would like Out Cold so much more if Jenny ended up ditching Rick. And if she ended up with Pig Pen? Well, that would make it that much better since Rick is kind of a dick to Pig Pen for no fucking reason.

Though I did take a lot of shots at this movie, overall I love it. I find most of it pretty funny to this day, and most of all, it did a good job of building a world. The bar and town overall seemed like a cool place to live. Even if I wouldn’t want to hang out with cool-guy Rick, I would want to hang out in his town for a bit.

Casablanca

Man, I hate music in old movies. It’s just so damn overbearing. They really did not trust the audience to know when things were dangerous or sad back then. Thankfully, it’s toned down a bit through most of the movie.

They really went all out with the Ultimate Edition. I didn't have a passport when I bought this, but now that I do, that passport holder will come in handy…

The guy who gets shot at the beginning does that great, old-timey “I've been shot!” pose.

The second part of Grim Fandango made a lot more sense after I watched this.

I always liked Peter Lorre in this. I wish he had more to do, though.

This is one of those rare classics that I truly enjoy. Usually with an old movie universally declared one of the greatest films ever made, I can appreciate why it was so important, but I end up being bored by it (*cough* Citizen Kane! *cough*). With Casablanca, I honestly enjoy it each time I watch it. It isn’t a simple movie. I’m always left a little conflicted with Rick’s decision in the end, even though I always agree with it. And atmosphere is always important to me in a film, and Casablanca does a great job of creating a world you want to stick around in, which is quite the feat since every character wants to get away from it.

"The Hangover" Series Comes to a Much Needed End

Directed by Todd Phillips, written by Phillips & Craig Mazin, starring Zach Galifianakis, Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Ken Jeong, and John Goodman - Rated R

Finish it...

 

 

 

 

 

I pretty much swore off writing reviews of comedies a little while back because comedy is harder to judge than any other form of entertainment.  Not to get into my whole theory as to why reviewing comedies is a pointless exercise, let’s just say that some people might find The Hangover Part III hilarious, others will be indifferent, and others will hate it.  Duh, right?  That is exactly why I don’t like reviewing comedies, but this film deserves a review mainly because it is the end of the series.  As for my official stance on the film, I’m indifferent.  I laughed a few times (never all that hard), rolled my eyes here and there, and left the theatre slightly amused and glad that the series had come to an end.

 

Writer/director Todd Phillips took a lot of flak from fans and critics alike for The Hangover Part II.  A lot of people were angry because he essentially made the first film over again with a different location and only slightly different jokes.  I was actually one of the few apologists for that film when it was initially released, and I stand by my immediate response to that film.  When I left the theatre, I felt like I got my money’s worth.  I laughed quite a bit, even if most of it was predictable.  That film, however, did not hold up well at all during a second viewing.  A comedy doesn’t have to be re-watchable, but the best comedies certainly are. 

 

Because of this backlash, Phillips promised that Part III would be different.  Well, he certainly came through with that promise.  This movie is a borderline action-comedy rather than a full blown laugh fest.  I can’t tell if it’s intentional or not, but I do know that it’s not nearly as enjoyable as the first film. 

 

The plot involves the wolfpack of Alan (Zach Galifianakis), Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), and Doug (Justin Bartha) and their psychotic friend/enemy Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong).  Mr. Chow has stolen some gold from a ruthless gangster (John Goodman) who kidnaps Doug, telling the rest of the wolfpack that he’ll kill Doug if they can’t deliver Chow and the gold.  So the movie is still a detective story in essence; it just doesn’t involve the investigators being hungover the whole time.  Oh, and it’s not all that funny. 

 

Don’t get me wrong, I laughed a few times as I watched this movie, but nothing truly cracked me up (well, maybe the sight gag after the credits…).  It’s all slightly amusing, but it has become boring.  If you still find the simple sight of Zach Galifianakis funny then you’ll like it, but there are no new and interesting jokes regarding his character.  It’s as if Todd Phillips expects everyone to laugh just because Galfianakis is present.  To his credit, a lot of people will laugh, but I need more than just a shot of Galifianakis with his shirt off if I’m expected to laugh. 

 

The other problem with the film is Chow.  I found him amusing in his thankfully few scenes in the first film, but he was unbearable in the second film.  I thought he was simply annoying, and not in a funny way.  Chow is a bit more bearable in this film, and I do admit to laughing at a few of his lines and a bit of physical comedy.  But overall, the character is one-note and should be left on the sidelines.  Once again, though, if you find that character funny before, you’ll love it.

 

The Hangover Part III just didn’t do it for me, but I am glad it exists, and I am happy that the franchise has been brought to an end.  I am also glad to see the box office for the film is not all that great, ensuring that this is the last installment.  I don’t think the sequels “ruined” the first film or anything, because a film stands on its own and no prequel or sequel can change it.  They are definitely unnecessary, though.  I think my own purchases regarding the series says it all: I bought the first film, I rented the second movie on video and wondered why I wanted to watch it again, I have watched Part III once and that is enough.  Perhaps “once is enough” should have been the mantra of the filmmakers.

"The Hangover Part II"

The Hangover Part II - Directed by Todd Phillips, written by Phillips, Craig Mazin, and Scot Armstrong, starring Ed Helms, Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, and Ken Jeong - Rated R

They can keep making the same plot over and over again as long as it stays funny.

After the surprise success of the R-rated The Hangover two years ago, it became apparent that a sequel would happen. As with all sequels there was the fear that the filmmakers would rest on their laurels and phone in a bland, money-grabbing sequel. Thankfully, they focused on one-upping every aspect of the first film and while The Hangover Part II certainly isn’t original, it is very funny and manages to put Allen, Stu, and Phil through even crazier situations than the last time.

The Hangover Part II is nearly a carbon copy of the first film. It is about the same cast of characters and the same situation they were in the last time. This time Stu (Ed Helms) is the one getting married and it’s his soon to be brother-in-law who goes missing, but this time they are in Bangkok, Thailand. The setting is everything this time around (Bangkok is referred to as a character itself multiple times) as Bangkok is renowned for its ridiculous level of debauchery.

Normally if a sequel completely copies a previous storyline it would be awful, but this is a series about guys who party so hard they forget everything and lose a member of the group. To expect a sequel to drastically change that formula is a bit ridiculous. A comedy like this can only be faulted if it simply isn’t funny. Who is really watching this film and expecting some original, surprising plot? If that is what you expect, you should skip it. If you’re looking for laughs, it’s hard to imagine that you will end up disappointed.

The first film exceeded expectations because of a great cast. Ed Helms takes the reins of this one and the film is better off for it. He has perfected the art of the freak out and it is hilarious every time he shrieks in dismay. Bradley Cooper does a fine job as the calm member of the group as he tries to keep everyone on task. And fan favorite Zach Galifianakis keeps the man-child shtick of the first film going strong. Perhaps the film relies on Galifianakis’s appearance for laughs a bit too much, but the guy just looks funny. His appearance when he first wakes up is fantastic. Did we see that in the first one, though? Yes, but it’s still funny somehow.

The supporting cast should please most audiences as well. There are a few cameos and Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) returns. Personally, I’m a bit tired of seeing Jeong (the guy seems to be in every comedic TV show and movie these days) so Chow’s appearance didn’t do much for me. The rest of the audience seemed to really dig him, though. One cast member who has to be getting a bit angry is Justin Bartha, the missing guy from the first film. You would think that he would be part of the gang this time around yet he still has to sit on the sidelines. There’s always hope for the inevitable third film, though.

The comedy of The Hangover Part II cannot be described in too much detail because no one wants anything spoiled (especially comedy) and most of the stuff that happens in the film is not fit for publication. This is a dirty movie, make no mistake about it. It’s a film filled with drug use, violence, and graphic nudity. As stated above, this film is all about going bigger. Take everything from the first film and give it a shot in the arm and you are left with The Hangover Part II.

This is not a flawless comedy, however. At times, it tries a bit too hard to be crazy. The inclusion of a cigarette smoking, drug-dealing monkey was humorous at first but quickly became too silly. A monkey does allow for some funny dialogue (people yelling about monkeys always makes me laugh), but there was no need to make the monkey some kind of unofficial fourth member of the group.

The Hangover Part II isn’t a comedy masterpiece, but it is very funny. The unavoidable question is, “Is it funnier than the first one?” It’s too early to tell on that one. Fresh out of the theater you may find it much funnier than the first, but it needs to sink in a bit before you start comparing the hilarity of both films. The fact that it’s hard to tell says something, though. It says that this is a worthy sequel. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before, but as long as you’re laughing, who cares?

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Ken Jeong, please leave the series. I was sick of Mr. Chow by the end of the first film, but I understand that he had to make an appearance here because of how popular he's become. It looked like they had done something brilliant with him, though. He wakes up and gets ready to tell the guys what happened only to die before he can start the story. It was hilarious and unexpected...until it turned out he was still alive. Why didn't they leave him dead?

I loved how apparently Allen sees the world through the eyes of a child… it makes sense.

Mike Tyson was kind of silly at the end. But some people will enjoy his appearance.

Nick Cassavettes? What’s the point of that? I understand they needed a replacement for Gibson's replacement (Liam Neeson), but Nick Cassavettes? How many people are going to see him and think, "Cool, the director of Alpha Dog has a cameo!"?

All issues with Gibson aside, I think he would've worked out great in the cameo. Oddly enough, he has had a cameo before in which he had a lot of tattoos and piercings in Father's Day.

The Allentown song was great. Once again, yes it's just like the first film because Stu has to make up a song, but I thought it was funny.

“They shot the monkey!” I can't help but laugh at that line.

I dug the little health care dig: "Eight stitches and it only cost six dollars, how is that possible?”

"Due Date"

Due Date - Directed by Todd Phillips, written by Alan R. Cohen & Alan Freedland and Adam Sztykiel & Todd Phillips, starring Robert Downey Jr., Zach Galifianakis, Michelle Monaghan, and Jamie Foxx - Rated R

Planes, Trains & Automobiles this isn't, but it's still pretty funny.



Comedy is my least favorite genre to review. I love a good comedy as much as anyone, don’t get me wrong, but to critique it is an exercise in futility. Comedy is subjective; it’s all about the viewer’s personal sense of humor. I suppose you could make this argument for all genres of film, but I find comedies are much more susceptible to divisiveness. The point is I can’t tell you whether or not Due Date is funny; I can only tell you if I thought it was funny.

With all that said, I thought Due Date was funny. I didn’t find it uproarious or anything, though. This movie, from writer/director Todd Phillips (The Hangover), tries to be a bit more than a laugh a minute comedy. Due Date wants to be Planes, Trains & Automobiles but it lacks the heart of that superior film. This movie does have insanely funny moments, but it’s mainly a film of polite chuckles rather than uncontrollable guffaws. I’m okay with that and I did like Due Date, but it is not a potential comedy classic.

I make the comparison to Planes because Due Date is a road trip movie in which an odd couple of men have to make it across the country in a set amount of time. Robert Downey Jr. plays Peter, the Steve Martin of the film, who is trying to make it home to L.A. for the birth of his child, hence the title. Zach Galifianakis plays Ethan, the obnoxious, but sympathetic John Candy role, who is traveling to L.A. to become an actor after his father has died.

Your enjoyment of Due Date doesn’t really hinge on great comedic writing; it’s more about the two stars. I’m starting to pick up on a bit of Galifianakis backlash lately and I can understand why: the guy is in everything it seems. A day doesn’t go by when I don’t see a preview, TV show, internet video, or movie that features his bearded face. I don’t mind because I find him hilarious. Others might be starting to tire of him.

Galifianakis, like John Candy in Planes, is disgusting at worst and only slightly annoying at best. Downey Jr. does a great job just reacting to the craziness. Sure, it’s funny enough when Galifianakis uses one of his antiquated exclamatory phrases (“I have never!”) and stomps off in a furious ladywalk, but just seeing the look of befuddlement and anger on Downey’s face is enough to make me laugh. It gets even better when Downey loses his cool and gets loud and violent. My favorite moments in the film involve Downey punching and spitting. That may sound odd, but when you see it, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about.

The stars work well together and most of the big set pieces, while completely ridiculous, are pretty entertaining. The few action-type scenes are filmed well. The supporting cast is amusing (though I thought Jamie Foxx was a bit underused). The point is this movie is completely enjoyable and worth checking out. But it does fail in a very noticeable way that may put some viewers off a bit.

This film tries very hard to have a heart. It’s understandable that Phillips would want to make a film with a little more drama to it since his previous films (Old School, Road Trip) are all laughs and little or no heart. The emotional scenes in Due Date are so unexpected and awkward, though, that they fail to produce any sense of drama. First off, Galifianakis is hard to take seriously and you want to laugh at the guy. I like to laugh at his stupidity, though, not at his grief. In a scene in this film, Galifianakis’s character is attempting to showcase his acting “skills.” It’s funny enough, but in the end of the scene he starts sobbing over the death of his father. When he switched over to the tears I heard multiple people in the theater laugh, not realizing that the funny scene just went sad. It’s not good when a movie makes you inadvertently laugh at someone’s grief. So Phillips has a way to go in the drama department. I would be okay with him never attempting again, though.

Due Date is the film that wants to have a heart but doesn’t. That doesn’t mean it is a bad movie. I enjoyed the majority of the film and I laughed consistently. This isn’t a comedy for the ages or anything, but it’s just fine for now. If you’re a fan of the stars, you should enjoy it. But remember, this isn’t a funny movie; it’s just a movie that I found funny. The comedy is up to you.


Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

It might be wrong of me, but seeing Downey Jr. punch a child in the stomach and spit in a dog's face made me laugh and laugh.

I'm pretty sure they should have been arrested at the end of the movie. They did cause quite a lot of damage at the border.

Danny McBride's short scene was funny. Even though the line is in the previews, I still like the idea of someone making reservations at Chili's.

Speaking of the preview, way too many jokes were given away. I was hoping they would take the example from Get Him to the Greek. That comedy's previews barely featured any footage that made the final cut. It showed the tone of the movie without ruining any of the jokes. Due Date's previews spoil a big chunk of the movie. But what can you do? It was really hard not to see any of the marketing for this film.

"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?

"The Hangover" / "Killshot"

The Hangover - Directed by Todd Phillips, starring Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis - Rated R



The Kurgan loves movies about debauchery.



The Hangover, despite a slow start, is a downright hilarious comedy that is a welcome change from all the big summer movie fare. This movie doesn’t pretend to be anything it’s not. It is an R-rated comedy about a bachelor party gone wrong in Las Vegas. You can imagine the glorification of debauchery that ensues.

It all starts with Doug (Justin Bartha of National Treasure fame) getting fitted for a tux with his off-balance future brother-in-law, Alan (Zach Galifianakis in what is sure to be a breakout role). Doug and Allan then head off to pick up schoolteacher buddy Phil (the hilarious Bradley Cooper) and dentist pal Stu (Ed Helms). The four head off to Vegas for a drunken, but well intentioned bachelor party. So you have to wade through the expository stuff, like how Stu is afraid to stand up to his controlling girlfriend, Allan could be a problem if he drinks too much, and Phil can’t wait to get out of school and forget he has a job or a family, so you can get to the best part: the morning after the party. That’s when the guys lose the groom.

This turns the film into a funny detective film. Phil, the assumed leader of the trio, even takes down notes as they try to backtrack their steps from the night before. The detective aspect is what sets this film apart. I found it hilarious as the guys bribed witnesses and questioned bystanders to try and figure out such mysteries as why they have a tiger and a baby in their hotel room and why they came back to the hotel in a stolen police car.

I don’t want to go into any more details than I have already since parts of this film (such as the taser scene) lost their luster for me since I had seen the preview so many times. But this is not one of those movies where every funny scene is in the previews, though one or two of the funniest moments are in the preview. There are consistent laughs throughout the film and the story is actually interesting, which is a bit rare for a comedy of this nature.

Of course the jokes are only as funny as the people telling them and this cast handles them all well. I must reiterate how funny Galifianakis is in this. This is a comedian who knows how to sacrifice his body for comedy. His jutting gut and bushy beard make him a funny sight, and it helps that he can act as well. Ed Helms, he of the prominent missing tooth, makes full use of his sight gag by regularly giving a big toothy smile which makes the gap blatantly obvious in each scene. He looks so unaware of the missing tooth that the joke never got old for me. Bradley Cooper is the one holding it all together and he has a certain charisma that really gets the audience rooting for these guys to find their lost friend.

I need to say something about the makeup department for this film as well. I normally don’t pay attention to this type of thing (unless it’s a zombie movie), but they did an amazing job in roughing these guys up. Just by looking at the three of them when they wake up in the trashed hotel suite you can tell that they have had a very long night. It adds to the hilarity of the film when you can just look at a character’s face and chuckle a bit.

The makeup is not the only sense of style in this film, though. Director Todd Phillips (Old School) manages to squeeze in a few of his trademarks: the band from Old School that performed the curse-laden version of “Total Eclipse of the Heart” makes an appearance, the song choice is dead on and very funny at times, and the director himself makes his obligatory mustachioed cameo. Phillips also manages to throw in a few amusing references to other Vegas-based films like Casino and Swingers.

Aside from those slight examples of style, this is your basic raunchy comedy, but it doesn’t make apologies for that. Instead it embraces it, and that’s what makes The Hangover so funny.


Killshot - Directed by John Madden, starring Mickey Rourke, Thomas Jane, Diane Lane, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt - Rated R


Commodus thought this was worthy of a theatrical release, but that doesn't mean it's great.



Killshot is one of those movies that has been completed for years and got shelved for some reason. Usually that means the movie is awful and the studio is waiting to dump it and release it for tax purposes only. Killshot was dumped (I saw a preview for this more than a year and a half ago), but it's not because it's awful. It's not a masterpiece by any means, but it should've had a chance in theaters.


This movie, adapted from an Elmore Leonard novel, is about a hitman (Rourke) who is getting old and out of touch with the business and the troubled couple he happens upon (Jane and Lane). Diane Lane gets a good look at his face, so Rourke is determined to kill both of them to keep from getting caught. Mickey Rourke does a good job as a menacing hitman and Joseph Gordon-Levitt is great as his redneck/loudmouth partner. Though Lane and Thomas Jane seem to be going through the motions.


The story seems to go on a bit longer than it has to, even though there are entertaining scenes. But Rourke and Gordon-Levitt can't save this film from mediocrity. There isn't a real sense of danger in the pursuit of the married couple. I didn't really care one way or the other about who beat who. It was all just...numb. And John Madden tried to add a bit of style (mainly through the opening credits), but there's something missing from the story. I guess I was expecting some sort of emotion or something, but something more interesting and entertaining would have done. Maybe the film should have been all about Rourke and Gordon-Levitt and just left Thomas Jane and Diane Lane as side characters. That would have been much more fascinating, and probably more entertaining as well. But this movie is still worth a watch, even if the studio doesn't think so.



For Wednesday: An article about Predator; the politics of it (both metaphorical and actual) and the sheer manliness of it.