Let’s face it: Hollywood is all but creatively bankrupt — so much so that my future as a semi-regular moviegoer is, I feel, in jeopardy. In the development pipeline right now are films based on Stretch Armstrong, Slinky, and View-master (and, no doubt, there are sequels to Transformers and G.I. Joe in the offing as well). For me, a man who likes a well-told story with engaging characters, the outlook is decidedly grim. I would say that District 9 is a bright spot in an increasingly barren cinematic landscape, but there are two impediments to my making that claim:
1) The film was made outside of the system. The only thing we can say in praise of Hollywood in regards to “D9″ is that they had the good sense to distribute it (which is something, I suppose). On the other hand, it’s impossible for me to imagine director Neill Blomkamp going to an American studio, hat in hand, and asking them to finance this dark movie with no clear “rooting interest”. The execs would have laughed him right out the door.
2) “Bright spot” wouldn’t be a good term to describe District 9. The movie is relentlessly bleak, and people don’t want challenging stories (or at least Hollywood has decided that they don’t). Though the movie did well it’s opening weekend, don’t expect the sort of repeat business you sometimes get with lighter fare. If you go to see “D9″, be prepared to be uncomfortable for a lot of the running time, but at least try and console yourself with the fact that what you’re seeing is somewhat unique. I can’t help but wonder if, when “D9″ doesn’t end up making 200 million dollars domestic, it will be written off as a failure.
I enjoyed District 9 a lot, though, as you might have gathered, it is by no means a “feel good” summer movie. I don’t know about you, but not every flick I take in has to elevate me spiritually, however. In fact, we all need to be reminded from time to time of the darker side. “D9″ does that in an elegant and thoughtful way.
I experienced a bit of a disconnect watching Funny People because it defied my expectations. The movie doesn’t fit with what I’ve come to think of as the Judd Apatow Brand — a brand than consists of about 75% raucous potty humor and 25% pathos. Sure, there are plenty of glimmers of the old Apatow, but this felt more like a Cameron Crowe movie than a direct descendant of something like The 40 Year Old Virgin. I happen to like Cameron Crowe’s work, but it’s still a little jarring when you go in thinking you’re going to get one thing and you end up with something else. By the end of the movie, though, I got over my discombobulation and enjoyed myself. In fact, I’d say that, in some respects, this is Apatow’s best film to date. At the risk of sounding condescending, this feels like a “real movie” much more so than any of the director’s other flicks. It’s a well-structured story told without farcical digression and it’s technically very well-made. Also, the acting is uniformly excellent (with a special shout-out going to Marshall Mathers who has a very amusing cameo).
So, just to give you some sort of touchstone of quality, here’s where I would rank Funny People on the Cameron Crowe O’meter: It’s not as good as Jerry Maguire, but it’s a lot better than Elizabethtown. Let’s call it Judd Apatow’s Almost Famous.
Okay, so Groundhog Day isn’t uproariously funny, but I don’t think that was ever really its intent. It’s actually a charming and sweetly old-fashioned movie much in the way that Tootsie with Dustin Hoffman is also a throwback. This story of a weatherman damned to a sort of purgatory is, I think, what you would get if Frank Capra and Rod Serling had somehow been able to collaborate. What I admire about it is the fact that it’s actually about something – a thing you can say about precious few films. Hell, Groundhog Day even manages to be borderline spiritual and just a touch sublime. I enjoyed revisiting it very much.
Let’s just cut to the chase, shall we? Bruno doesn’t have anywhere near the number of laughs per minute as Borat. That’d be a big enough problem by itself, but I was also bothered by the fact that both movies have pretty much the same story ( i.e. weird foreign guy comes to the United States on a mission, weird foreign guy hits rock bottom on an American sidewalk, weird foreign guy rebounds to live happily ever after). Overall, I’d call the flick a disappointment, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t have its high points. Despite the comparison to its more successful forebear, Bruno has plenty of funny moments. If I had it to do over again, though, I probably would’ve waited until DVD or cable.
My disappointment not withstanding, I do think Sascha Baron Cohen is an enormously talented (and fearless) performer. I just hope he realizes that the pseudo-documentary style of his last two films is officially played out.
Recent Comments