Kick Ass (2010)

Starring: Aaron Johnson, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Mark Strong, Chloe Moretz and Nicolas Cage.

Kick Ass came out of nowhere. One minute Jonathon Ross was tweeting about his wife’s new film that no-one’s heard of, then suddenly it’s everywhere. On the cover of Empire magazine, on the sides of busses, all over the TV. Most of my work colleagues have heard about it, though one mistakenly interpreted it to be a new spoof movie – ala the Wayans brothers – and had already decided to give it a wide berth (I called him a twat and set his facts straight, naturally).

Kick Ass seemed to gain momentum overnight, but is it worthy of the hype?

Kick Ass is a film about a normal, geeky American teenager (Johnson) living in New York. One day on his way home from the comic store, he gets mugged for the millionth time, and decides he’s had enough. He orders a frankly awful wetsuit and balaclava combo off the internet, and goes out into the neighbourhood to right some wrongs under the pseudonym of Kick Ass.

Naturally, he gets stabbed up and hit by a car.

With most of his bones shattered, he has several metal bone replacements inserted (“Cool, I look like Wolverine!”) and ends up with such damaged nerve endings he is able to feel little pain. So he chucks the wetsuit back on and gets back out there.

Meanwhile, the local mob boss in town is having a hard time, as all his cocaine deals are interrupted by a masked assailant described by his lackeys as looking “like Batman. But not Batman.” As Kick Ass steps up his campaign to clean up the neighbourhood, a video of him saving a man from a gang beating ends up on Youtube. With that, the mob boss puts a mark on Kick Ass’ head, convinced he is responsible for all his lost revenue. He enlists his comic-obsessed son (Mintz-Plasse) to pose as the new superhero in town to bring Kick Ass in.

Unbeknown to everyone, the real superheroes in town are the father-daughter combo of Big Daddy (Cage) and Hit Girl (Moretz). An ex-cop, framed by said mob boss and sent to jail for coke dealing, Big Daddy has vengeance on the brain. Since his parole, he has been training his 12 year old daughter to take bullets, run up walls and fling knives around.

In summation: don’t try to take this kid’s lunch money.

I really can’t put much more of the plot without giving everything away. But you get the general idea – superheroes, guns and geeks.

So, let’s start by talking about Aaron Johnson. He’s 19, English, going out with a 43 year old film director, and soon to be father of their child. I’m not one to be prejudiced about age gaps but...that’s fucked up, right?

You may recognise Johnson (if you’re a girl) from Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging, where he played a hunk – a far cry from the geeky character he portrays here. Likewise you may have seen him in the more respectable Nowhere Boy as a young John Lennon (his casting was no doubt helped along by the fact he was boning the director).

I’d say Kick Ass was probably a pretty easy character to play, as they go. However, Johnson has had the chance to start showing off his acting ability in a number of varied roles, and I found him to be a perfectly believable geek (if not a tad too good looking). I thought he was fine, and as a trio with his two best friends he provides some of the biggest laughs of the film. Some great laughs also arise from the girl of his dreams thinking he’s homosexual – and him playing along to spend time with her.

I don’t have too much more to say about him – I’d need to see more of his acting repertoire to judge if he’s more than just a pretty face, though I applaud any English actor who breaks Hollywood, especially at 19.

Christopher Mintz-Plasse is best known (of course) for being the infamous McLovin. Having only seen him in Role Models and Superbad before Kick Ass, I could say he’s typecast and moan about that. But what’s wrong with being typecast when you’re absolutely hilarious and brilliant? He’s not a major role in this film, but every scene he’s in is full of laughs.

I love this guy.

Him and Johnson deliver (in my opinion) the funniest scene of the film. I won’t give it away, but I’ll just say this – Gnarls Barkley.

Now, Nicolas Cage. Nicolas Cage is a douche. You don’t need me to tell you that if you’ve been subjected to any of his acting “work” over the last 5 years. The last film I genuinely thought he was good in was Adaptation. Adaptation is 8 years old, and he’s been in 22 films since then. It seems any film that stars Cage these days should come with a label under the certification

“Warning: May well be shit.”

Thank god Kick Ass doesn’t need that certification. Cage steps back and takes a smaller role, is annoying to the minimum, and actually delivers some pretty good laughs. I congratulate him for being brave enough to take on a film where his character’s first scene involves shooting his 12 year old daughter in the chest. He still irritated me a bit, but this is a far cry from Bangkok Dangerous, Knowing, National Treasure, or any of that terrible wank he’s been appearing in lately.

So, what did I think of the film as a whole?

It’s good. It is. It’s consistently funny, missing the mark only a few times. It’s violent in a way that will make you grin and wince at the same time, but revel in every second of the action. It takes the piss out of crap superhero movies like there’s no tomorrow, while showing respect for the greats simultaneously. It’s pretty well written, and the direction is sublime.

There are only a few little gripes I have with the film. The main one being is that Kick Ass has his own Myspace page. I mean, who the hell are they trying to kid? Myspace are spending so much money trying to get into films lately, with a huge segment in Funny People and now a prominent part in Kick Ass. Now, I don’t want to be mean to my first ever friend on Myspace but seriously, Tom, you’re flogging a dead horse. Myspace is going to be completely socially irrelevant in 10 years, maybe even 5. While it still may be used to showcase new musical talent, it will never be used as a social networking site to the extent it once was. The fact that Kick Ass has a Myspace page is going to date the film considerably, but if it was funding from the site that made the film possible, I guess that’s ok with me.

Some of the CGI isn’t fantastic, but it really didn’t matter to me. The action sequences are just breath-taking; I’ll suffer fake looking flames for a 12 year old annihilating a corridor of grown men any day.

This film is going to be Chloe Moretz’s big break. I have no doubt whatsoever about that. She’s only just 13, but she was the film’s biggest, brightest star. Hit Girl is most definitely going to be a hit with almost everyone. Who doesn’t love watching a 12 year old girl chop people’s legs off and cuss like a pro? Seriously though, I saw Moretz in 500 Days of Summer in a fairly small role, and thought that she seemed to have pretty impressive acting chops for someone so young. This film is without a doubt her vehicle to stardom. She is responsible for the majority of the laughs, the majority of the deaths, and is the essence of the whole film.

She’s the one who really kicks ass.

I would definitely recommend this film to almost anyone - except your nan.

The Lovely Bones (2010)

Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Stanley Tucci, Susan Sarandon

The Lovely Bones is an adaptation of the wonderful, celebrated novel by Alice Sebold. Naturally, when such a well –loved book is adapted, it’s impossible to please everyone. Peter Jackson was brave to take on the project, being far removed from his previous epic Lord of the Rings, the not-so-epic King Kong, and the cult favourites that are Braindead and The Frighteners.

The Lovely Bones is the story of Susie Salmon, a 14 year old girl whose life is just beginning. On the way home from school one day, taking a shortcut through the neighbourhood cornfield, her neighbour Mr Harvey invites her into a den he has built under the soil. He then proceeds to drug, rape and brutally murder her. The rest of the novel concerns Susie watching over her family from heaven, seeing her murderer quietly get on with his life undetected, and witnessing her parent’s marriage crumble.

So, first things first. I’ve read the book. I like the book very much, and it made me cry more than I’d care to admit. It was full of feeling, full of sadness and, ironically, full of life. Unlike other films though, I wasn’t worried about any director “ruining” the book (the same cannot be said for The Golden Compass). The Lovely Bones is such a long, detailed and involved novel; I couldn’t possibly imagine anyone being able to fit in all the important parts (and the notion of “important parts” is entirely subjective anyway). Personally, I feel The Lovely Bones is too involved, and too intricate for film. It would’ve done well as a high budget TV series, a-la Twin Peaks, if you ask me.

Saoirse Ronan makes a brilliant Susie Salmon. She’s almost exactly how I imagined her, and even if she wasn’t it wouldn’t have mattered. She’s a fabulous actress for her age (16) and plays Susie with just the right level of naivety, maturity and uncertainty. While traditionally I prefer to keep my imagined book characters away from Hollywood’s version of them (Ron, Harry & Hermione for instance), I’ll happily re-read the Lovely Bones now with Ronan’s Susie clear in my mind.

Mark Wahlberg’s Mr Salmon was a huge relief for me. For me, Wahlberg will never, ever escape the memory of the travesty that was M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening. Every time I think of Wahlberg, I see him running down a lane screaming “The plants! The plants are coming to get meee!”. I’d labelled him as a terrible actor, and moved on. Ryan Gosling from The Notebook was set to play Mr Salmon (which I would’ve liked, again for the perve-factor). Gosling refused the role though, as he felt he wasn’t old or mature enough to do it justice. On hearing Wahlberg had stepped into his shoes, I was a little horrified, but curious. And, thank God, the man proved me wrong. He can act! Not only can he act, but he can also carry a scene without being melodramatic, irritating or obvious.

Who would’ve thunk it?

I guess Shyamalan’s direction was to blame for his awful performance. Makes me wish Wahlberg had just turned around and told him to shove his directing up his arse though. (Zooey Deschanel receives a get out of jail free card for The Happening, as she wasn’t really annoying, and then completely rocked 500 Days of Summer).

Rachel Weisz as Mrs Salmon was somewhat wasted. She’s a far bigger character in the book, and I didn’t like the re-writing of her character’s reaction to Susie’s death. She is shown as pathetic and broken, a shell of a woman who runs away almost immediately so she doesn’t have to face Susie’s death. If the book correlated correctly with the film, she would have left Mr Salmon because he got too obsessed with finding Susie’s killer and neglected her entirely – not because (as the film would have you believe) she couldn’t cope. They also decide to do away with her affair with the Lead Detective, Len Fenerman. I believe Jackson chose to do this as he seems to have been determined to reinforce the themes of “family” and “home”.

Susan Sarandon, as Susie’s grandmother, injected some much needed life into the film. I think she actually improved on the book’s character, adding just that little extra charisma and humour that Sarandon always brings in spades. She’s pretty much the only comic relief provided throughout the film, and without her I think I would’ve been trying to suffocate myself with a popcorn box (much easier in cinemas where they serve popcorn in bags).

So, the film itself. Well, it’s ok. I don’t think it’s a masterpiece and I don’t think it stands up to the majority of Jackson’s previous work (though I think I’d rather watch The Lovely Bones than King Kong). There’s just far too much material to work with, and I can’t imagine the nightmare Jackson had deciding what was important and what wasn’t. It definitely doesn’t benefit from the Hollywood treatment, and the true feeling of the novel never seems to come through on screen.

Normally, a film about death and funerals and leaving loved ones behind etc would have my eyes streaming like a 5 year old’s nose.

The film just didn’t have the right tone – Jackson’s stunning visuals of the afterlife seem needlessly inserted to garner Oscar nominations – and it suffered from what I like to call “12A” syndrome. The novel is heart wrenching, sophisticated, sometimes sexy and sometimes explicitly gruesome. Everything is toned down in the film for the kiddies – no sex, only hints of real violence and gore, and the subject of child molestation is neatly skipped around - just very, very lightly hinted at. I’m not saying I want to see a child being raped on a 20ft screen, but I think it’s a bit of a cop out in this day and age to leave it “assumed”.

Stanley Tucci as the murderer, on the other hand, is a brilliant performance. He is absolutely fucking terrifying in a bumbling, nervous and just downright creepy persona. I can’t praise his performance enough. Unsettling and unnerving, but amazing. Tucci and Susie’s sister Lindsay deliver the best scene of the entire film – literally the only time I was on the edge of my seat – in a sequence that alludes to Hitchcock’s Rear Window.

The only other major gripe I have with this film is that the characters of Ray Singh and especially Ruth are entirely wasted. Ruth is important, but gets so little screen time you feel yourself wondering if the projectionist spliced out a section by mistake, especially given the ending (but no spoilers).

I’d see the film if you’ve read the book and don’t feel too strongly about it. If you’re a diehard fan of the novel, I’d steer well clear. And those of you who haven’t read it – I would strongly advise you do so– you may find yourself feeling a little short-changed upon leaving the cinema, with a feeling there was something missing that you can’t quite put your finger on.

That “thing” that The Lovely Bones lacks, but through sheer context should have in triple servings, is the pure essence of the novel – real, human emotion.

New Moon (2009)

Apologies, as I know this review is hugely belated, and now probably highly irrelevant. I found this in my blog folder, almost finished, so decided to post it. My sincerest apologies go to anyone who owns the full length Edward Cullen door poster.

Starring: Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart, Taylor Lautner
I’m not going to explain New Moon’s plot in any great length. Anyone who wants to know already does, and I’m not looking to irritate those who hate Twilight with a fiery passion. So in a nutshell; vampires with sparkly belly buttons, cuddly werewolves, and a girl who’s hot for a bloke who stays up all night (I can see where she’s coming from on that one).

I’m not one to make my mind up about something until I’ve made sure to read/watch/listen to it. When told about Twilight, my initial reaction was

“Oh...so basically Buffy then?”

Being a hardcore Buffy/Angel fan, I attempted to approach Twilight with as open a mind as I could muster. I watched the film (Twilight) first, and was reasonably impressed. Mainly because of the pretty boys, I’ll be the first to admit. I decided to read the books, fully aware of how the film can only give you half the impression the book can.

And God, Stephanie Meyer has got to be one of the most illiterate bestselling authors I’ve ever encountered.

I swear I found made up words.

Twilight was an ok read though, so I thought I’d soldier on with reading New Moon before I saw the film. Big fucking mistake. New Moon was so dull. So desperately, desperately dull. It made me realise that any investment I had in Twilight as a series was purely aesthetic. The aforementioned pretty boys and passionate snogging was pretty much all that kept me mildly interested in the series.

Needless to say, when I went to watch New Moon, I wasn’t expecting fireworks.

New Moon had a different director to Twilight – a Mr Chris Weitz, director of teen-favourite American Pie and the rather less celebrated Golden Compass (an instance where Hollywood took a shit on an absolutely brilliant novel). I actually thought Catherine Hardwicke’s direction in Twilight was fairly good, so wasn’t sure about Weitz replacing her.

My worries were almost immediately justified as one of the first scenes showed Bella’s truck screeching through the streets of Forkes, accompanied by generic teen music ala American Pie.

My problem with Twilight franchise is that it’s another blatant and shameless gimmick that the general public have let themselves get sucked into. I mean, I get it. Vampires are cool. But vampires are much cooler when they’re kicking butt, taking names and fully recognising how melodramatic they are (Angel). There’s also something to be said for the True Blood brand of vampires, with their hot sex and “fang-bangers”. I’ve got nothing against vampires being heralded as sexy – but surely half of their appeal is that they’re creatures of the night? They’re supposed to burst into flame in sunlight, not twinkle like a twee Christmas tree.

Meyer’s vampires are lame. Meyer’s characters are under-developed and dull. Bella Swan is an entirely infuriating girl, so self-involved and introverted that she’ll sit in her room and mope for 3 months straight. Edward Cullen is probably the most melodramatic vampire ever to grace our screens, and sometimes I just wish Jacob would give him a slap.

I hold my hands up and admit, I’ll be watching the next 2 films (or is it 3? I heard rumours Breaking Dawn will be 2 parts). I will be watching them because Robert Pattinson is pretty, and because of Taylor Lautner’s abs. I will be watching them with little hope of an engrossing story or any exciting character development. I’ll basically be watching them because I’m a girl, and I’m a perve. I feel this is fine, as I’m 22 and can decide who I want to perve on. However, what drives me mad about the Twilight franchise - and Stephenie Meyer in particular – is that she writes under the pretext of being a Christian.

She claims the Twilight saga is chockfull of religious referencing and important messages. I claim, Stephenie Meyer, that you’re just selling sex to a bunch of teenagers who don’t know any better. I also claim that Bella Swan is a god-awful role model for young girls. She bases her whole life around a man, spends 3 months moping in her room when said man leaves her, and then only perks up when Jacob enters her life (oh goody, another man!).

So go and see New Moon if you liked the book (someone’s got to, I suppose).

Go see New Moon if you fancy watching poncey vampires sparkle, and buff werewolves charging about.

But for God’s sake, don’t expect anything original, or anything that Joss Whedon hasn’t already covered in considerably superior detail.

Oh and one more thing...TEAM JACOB.

Zombieland (2009)

Starring: Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin, Bill Murray

I’m a massive fan of zombie films. Have been since I watched Night of the Living Dead at my friend Marty’s on the biggest TV I’d ever seen. I’ve seen all the Romero classics (and sadly his newer, most definitely non-classics), all the good and bad “of the dead” remakes, and I loved 28 days/weeks later - despite the screams of hardcore zombie nerds that “They’re not real zombies!”. That said, zombie nerds are cool and I’d much rather hang out round them than any Twilight-obsessed teenybopper.

The story is narrated by Jesse Eisenberg’s Columbus – a World of Warcraft playing, IBS suffering loner, who practically has ‘Virgin’ tattooed on his forehead (maybe Eisenberg should begin to worry about what this typecasting is doing for his rep). Something that struck me was that though his narration was smooth, polished and cool, his character was anything but. I didn’t feel like his character had any real depth or inner conflict – I much preferred him in Adventureland.

Columbus teams up with Harrelson’s Tallahassee (who I feel the movie would’ve bombed without) in his struggle to get back home to his estranged parents. Tallahassee’s a great character; a done-to-death stereotypical redneck, but with great lines, a great performance by Harrelson, and pretty fucking great hat. Tallahassee is on the search for only one thing: a Twinkie.

And I think that says it all for how seriously the scriptwriter actually took the zombie genre.

While mashing up the undead on their travels, they meet Stone’s Wichita and Breslin’s Little Rock. Stone I recognised from Superbad - but only just – thanks to the 5 or so layers of thickly applied eyeliner her character has somehow managed to apply in the midst of a zombpocalypse. Breslin of course is from Little Miss Sunshine; she’s a really great child-star alternative to the simpering Dakota Fanning. Of course, Columbus instantly falls for Wichita, despite the fact the girls steal their guns and SUV and drive off into the sunset.

Zombieland looked amazing from the trailer. It seemed to have all the right ingredients for a really good rom-zom-com to rival Shaun of the dead:

• Zombies – check.
• Blood and guts – check.
• Comedy – check.
• Ace cast – check.

However, Shaun of the Dead doesn’t have to worry about being knocked off its mantle for now. Zombieland seemed to be written and directed by a bunch of guys who watched the remake of Dawn of the Dead and based their entire genre knowledge on it. While Shaun of the Dead was a homage to Romero, Zombieland was more like the High School Musical of zombie films. I couldn’t help liking it but God...it was disgustingly gimmicky:

• The loser who gets the girl – check.
• Carefully placed swear words – check.
• Big penis-metaphor guns – check.
• Pop-culture references that a hermit could get – check.

That said, it isn’t without its charm. It’s a funny movie with some great lines and as I said before, a really great performance from Harrelson.

I don’t think Zombieland was made for hardcore fans of the zombie genre, but rather those who’ve seen a few or zero zombie movies. I definitely wouldn’t watch it with a die-hard zombie fan, as the dialogue would be drowned out with cries of

a) “Zombies can’t climb ladders!” b) “Zombies can’t negotiate doorknobs!”
c) “Zombies can’t RUN!"

I could spend hours writing about all the ways Zombieland pisses all over the zombie genre, but I don’t want to bore you and besides, it really is a pretty good film. Sadly - and this has become a real gripe of mine lately - literally all the best bits are in the trailer (despite an excellent uncredited cameo). Watch it for what it is – a comedy horror movie. Just don’t get too hung up on the Z-word, and you’ll enjoy it immensely.

“What’s the best thing about living in Z-land?”
“No more facebook status updates.”
Never a truer word uttered.

500 Days of Summer (2009)

Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel, Geoffrey Arend, Chloe Moretz, Matthew Gray Gubler

When hearing from others that 500 Days of Summer was a “kooky” film, I felt instantly worried. I’ve seen far too many films where the director aims for “kooky” and ends up essentially with a bag of shit. Forced kookiness has got to be one of the most excruciating things to watch, and no doubt to put together. However, 500 Days of Summer hits the mark.

Thank Fuck.

On the most basic level, 500 Days of Summer can be summarised thus:

Boy meets girl. Boy falls in love. Girl doesn’t.


The boy in question? Gordon-Levitt’s Tom Hansen is a young, individual and likeable would-be architect, stuck in a job he hates. Instead of designing buildings, he designs greeting cards. Gordon-Levitt’s obviously been on the acting scene for years and years, notably cementing his career in 3rd Rock from the Sun, then starring in teen-flick (and every girl my age’s guilty pleasure) 10 Things I Hate About You, to graduate to the Smiths-strewn heights of this lovable indie number. And my GOD has he aged well. In a word; phwoar. But back to business...

Tom’s world changes when Deschanel’s Summer Finn lands a job at his office. He immediately decides she is “the one”, cueing a pretty amusing montage of scenes depicting Summer’s charmed life and how men gravitate around her. I don’t think they could have picked a better actress for the part – Deschanel is so beautiful and personable. After some decidedly dodgy previous films (the just kind of ok Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and the travesty that was The Happening) it was great to see her in a film that stood up to her talent. You could easily see why someone would instantly fall in love with her, or indeed; Summer.

The problem?

Summer doesn’t believe in love and *shocker* isn’t looking for a boyfriend.

500 Days of Summer skips back and forth through time, showing the clear progression, and regression, of Tom and Summer’s not-quite relationship. A thing I really appreciated about this film is how real their interactions seem. You find yourself recalling past and present relationships you’ve had yourself, likening times when your partner’s moved their hand away from yours and crushed you, to times when you’ve stayed in bed together all day and enjoyed blissful nothingness. At times the film devastates you as you personally feel Tom’s anguish at not being what Summer really wants. At others, you literally experience your heart jump with the same hope he feels at hearing the six words “I’ve never told anyone that before” drop from her lips. It truly plays with your emotions, never letting you linger on any one feeling for long.

A scene that really resonated with me was one where the film becomes split screen. Tom attends a party that Summer’s hosting; on one side you see his expectations play out, while on the other real life inevitably slaps him down. There’s also a brilliant scene where Tom walks to work after sleeping with Summer for the first time, and spontaneously breaks into song while executing a joyful dance routine with his fellow commuters.

Yes, 500 Days of Summer is kooky in all the right ways. It has subtle nods to other films (a Lebowski-esque Tom buys orange juice and Jack Daniels in his dressing gown and sandals) and has a brilliant soundtrack, but doesn’t bombard you with “cool” in-jokes and pretentiousness. Visually, every set is stunning - you practically see the waves of creativity emanating from the screen.

It’s warm and cold, loving and hostile, cheerful and depressing – and will leave you thinking afterwards. A definite recommendation from me. Buy it on DVD as soon as it comes out, if not only to appreciate the gorgeous on-screen chemistry between the brilliant lead actors.

Funny People (2009)

Starring: Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Leslie Mann, Eric Bana, Jonah Hill, Jason Schwartzman

I’d like to write a brief synopsis of the film here, but to be honest I’m finding it hard. Funny People is a film that meanders. It’s essentially the story of 2 people (and I still can’t make my mind up who the protagonist is) – George (Sandler) and Ira (Rogen). George is a successful comedian and film star who, at the beginning of the film, is diagnosed with Leukaemia. Ira is a struggling stand up comedian looking for his big break and working in a deli. They meet, George takes Ira under his wing, and hilarity ensues.

Kind of.

To be honest, I don’t like Adam Sandler. I find he’s incredibly typecast, and even when playing a character that’s not so similar, his ego tends to blare through like he’s got a big neon sign above his head reading “HEY, I’M ADAM FUCKING SANDLER!” I’ve seen a fair few of his movies and I haven’t noticed any depth to his acting whatsoever. Therefore I just couldn’t find a way to empathise with his character. It wasn’t “Oh no, George is dying”, it was “Oh, the character Adam Sandler’s playing in this film is dying”. It didn’t help that the character was essentially Sandler anyway, being a (not very good) comedian and all.

Rogen, on the other hand, is an actor I really like. Sure, he’s typecast as hell but he’s been around a lot less time than Sandler, and this film didn’t feature ANY weed. If you’ve seen Knocked Up, 40 Year Old Virgin or Pineapple Express I’m sure you’ll appreciate the magnitude of that sentence. He’s also slimmed down a fair bit (in preparation for his role in The Green Hornet) and looks a lot younger these days. I have to say I prefer bearded, chubby Rogen but he’s still completely lovable and identifiable as the bumbling Ira. This film gave him a chance to begin to break away from his usual role, and he does seem to be showing signs of being a really good, well-rounded actor.

Ira’s housemates are Apatow-favourite Jonah Hill, and a somewhat wasted Jason Schwartzman. Both are initially more successful than Ira, with Schwartzman getting a fat pay cheque from acting in an awful school sitcom every week, and Stone’s aspiring comedian getting more laughs and more gigs than Ira. I feel the movie would’ve lived up to its title a lot more if the action had focused more on the repertoire between these three, rather than giving Sandler far more screen time than he deserves.

A gripe I had with the film was in the form of George’s long-lost love Laura (Leslie Mann), and her two daughters. For those that don’t know, she is director/writer Judd Apatow’s real life wife, and those are their children. They also appeared in Knocked Up, again as a family unit but plus Paul Rudd. In my opinion the movie could’ve shaved off about half an hour by leaving out this shameless back-patting. We see extended montages of George and Ira hanging out with the family, playing games, and doing boring shit that no director in his right mind would’ve left in the film had the actors not been his own flesh and blood. I found this self-promotion irritating, and a little embarrassing that Apatow had to resort to showing a portfolio of his wife’s earlier TV and movie work during the film (maybe so he wouldn’t have to keep casting her?). Eric Bana’s cameo as her cheating Australian husband was pretty good though, and it was nice to see Bana without teary eyes and/or wielding a mace.

Now, I hate it when people moan that films are too long. Most people who do that seem to be complete morons, and massive chavs from what Facebook can tell me. For instance, a “friend” of mine’s status –
“Watchmen woz well to long! Wht da fuck even happend? Shit!”
However, morons and chavs aside, Funny People was one of those films that had about ten endings. It felt, towards the end, like watching Borimir’s death scene in Fellowship of the Ring. Twice. I think that without the unnecessary family scenes, and the overkill of celebrity cameos (keeping the Eminem and Ray Romano scene, which is hilarious) Funny People could easily have tied things up at the 2 hour mark, instead of drawing itself out for another half hour. Overall though, it’s well worth a watch, though it doesn’t pull on your heartstrings or tickle your funny bone particularly.

Maybe it could’ve done with being called “Slightly Funny People”.

Adventureland (2009)

Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Kristen Stewart, Ryan Reynolds, Bill Hader, Kristen Wiig, Martin Starr


I chose to see Adventureland over 500 Days of Summer at the very last minute because a)I was tired and it was on earlier
b)I'd heard good noises about it
c)I have a massive thing for Ryan Reynolds (sorry).

Adventureland is set in 1987 (the year I was born), but the opening scene (a college party) didn't seem so removed from the kind of parties I'd ended up at in the last few years. I guess that either means I've been hanging out with some dope-smoking and deceptively young-looking 40 year olds, or that maybe the 80s wasn't quite the shell-suited train wreck I previously perceived it to be. From what I could tell, the "way things were" seem a lot like "the way things still are". Maybe that's why I pretty much forgot it was set in 1987. Then again, maybe I was just being extra blonde.

The story runs thus - James (played by Eisenberg, who is alarmingly like Superbad's Michael Cera) has just graduated from college, and plans to travel round Europe all summer with his best friend Eric (a charismatic and compelling Michael Zegen, who stood out despite being in only 3 scenes). He's also a virgin and hoping to lose his "crimson V" fast.

Cue James' parents, who can't afford to finance his trip anymore, or (and here's the kicker) his tuition fees for grad school in New York come the end of summer. Armed with a laboriously written and ultimately useless CV, an awkward yet endearing stammer and a shit-load of joints (courtesy of Europe-bound Eric), James rapidly discovers that the only place he's able to find work is the rundown themepark in his home town - Adventureland.

Enter Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig, the owners. Bill Hader has been a favourite of mine for a while now, and his turn as the eccentric boss certainly doesn't disappoint. Wiig is also hilarious, though I wonder how long the "mumbling weird things" routine is going to work for her.

Fetchingly emblazoned "games" shirt in hand, James heads off to the stalls, where he meets the nerdy, googly-eyed lifer J (Starr of Knocked Up, though considerably less bearded). Some well put together and amusing scenes ensue, concerned with the extremely unfairly rigged amusements, the acknowledgement that only the cool kids work on the rides, and the assertion that under no circumstances should anyone win a "Big-ass panda". Also working on games is Kristen Stewart's punky Emily, hard to place when not sucking face with a vampire. James instantly falls for her, unaware that she's pretty busy helping the Handyman (Reynolds) cheat on his wife once a week.

Adventureland really struck a chord with me. I think it will with anyone who's worked long hours in a mundane summer job where the only real fun you have is with the people working beside you. It delicately and realistically shows the progression of James and Emily's relationship; noticably exhibiting an entirely refreshing lack of slow motion kisses and melodrama. You also find yourself caring deeply for a few of the other workers - no huge character flaws are made obvious, just a completely human feel to each and every one. We've all met these people: the guy who boasts and lies because he feels inadequate, the girl who seems to put it about but is actually still a virgin, the unhappy guy in his 30's going through a pre-emptive midlife crisis.

The casting is absolutely top-notch - Eisenberg's portrayal of James is so full of humility and feels so genuine that it's hard to believe he's any different in real life. Stewart similarly is fantastic, though perhaps a little too comparable with her best-known role of Bella Swan in Twilight. She's the same awkward and reserved character, though it's great to see her spit out a few swear words for once. Even Ryan Reynolds deserves a nod for his performance (and no, not because I fancy him), but because he plays a completely straight role, with literally no elongation of vowels or taking his shirt off. Surprised? I sure was. And maybe a little disappointed about the latter.

The film even has a perfectly realistic ending, and I was delighted upon reading up on it to find out it's semi-autobiographical, which lends so much more credibility in my opinion.

Go see it! Now!

(and if you have 3 twatty northerners who insist on sighing all the way through the film because it's not exactly like American Pie, just turn round and tell them to shut the fuck up. Worked for me.)



nb - also can't wait to see Eisenberg in Zombieland, which is a film that's either going to completely suck or absolutely rule.