Review: We're the Millers

Pop quiz: When was the last time you saw a good Jennifer Aniston movie?  Still thinking?  Well, if you have come to the conclusion that your answer is “maybe never” then you and I are in complete agreement.  If you take a quick look at her filmography, you’ll see it is littered with movies that you either completely forgot about or never saw.  Sure, there are a few decent ones in there, but none that you would say she absolutely carried.  Give her credit though; she’s managed to parlay her run on Friends into twenty years of relevancy.  Her latest movie, We’re the Millers, falls right in line with her others.  It’s not particularly good, and whatever merits it does possess, comes about because of the work of her cast mates.

The plot of the movie finds burnout drug dealer David Clark (Jason Sudeikis) in a bind and forced to make a drug smuggling run to Mexico at the behest of Brad Gurdlinger (Ed Helms).  In an effort to blend in, he bribes a stripper (Jennifer Aniston), a runaway (Emma Roberts), and a geek from his building (Will Poulter) to pose as his family.  Together they try to drive a Winnebago loaded with marijuana across the border and eventually into Colorado. 

In terms of the creative team, there’s not too much to say for director Rawson Marshall Thurber and writers Bob Fisher and Steve Faber.  This film is exactly what you would think it would be in regards to tone and direction – a clear attempt to cash in on some of the rated-R comedic success that Sudeikis has achieved in Horrible Bosses and Hall Pass.  The jokes are crude and only half of them hit, but there’s just enough to keep you going through the mediocre plot until its unraveling in the third act. 

As for the acting, here’s how each of the Millers fared:

Jennifer Aniston may have received top billing, but Jason Sudeikis is the star of this movie.  Putting aside the fact that Sudeikis is rumored to be a very difficult Hollywood personality (almost on par with Denzel Washington and Tommy Lee Jones), he has managed to carve out a decent niche beyond SNL in these sorts of rated-R comedies.  In We’re the Millers, his merits and deficiencies are on full display.  First and foremost, he’s funny in a sarcastic douchebaggery kind of way and that makes his emotive turn in the last act play better.  But when it comes to character development, you get a stark reminder that he is way more of a comedian than he is an actor.  Still, most of the laughs from this film come from him so he gets a check in the plus column.

Unfortunately, Jennifer Aniston as usual doesn’t hold up her end of the bargain.  As the proverbial stripper with a good heart, Aniston plays some iteration of the same character she has played for the past twenty years.  This time out, she is a more bitter, a bit more racy, and not nearly as funny.  The problem here is that she is supposed to be the emotional center of this film and one of the catalysts for Sudeikis’ emotional growth, but it just doesn’t play because Aniston’s onscreen characters are so difficult to root for.  In fact, her best contribution is to the film is not even in the movie itself; its her awkward reaction during an outtake from the gag reel.

Picking up the slack for Aniston in this movie is Will Poulter as Kenny, Sudeikis’ geeky faux son.  I haven’t seen Poulter in anything else, but he really nails the whole affable but awkward vibe necessary to set up some of his bigger gags.  You’ve probably seen the scene with him singing Waterfalls by TLC ad nauseum in every trailer and commercial, but he has plenty of other good moments in the movie and one or two over-the-top sight gags.

Last and certainly the least of the Millers clan is Emma Roberts as Casey.  If I ever there was someone who absolutely looked like they didn’t want to be in a movie, it would have to be Roberts in this one.  In some ways, this helps her performance because her character is supposed to come off as cynical and apathetic, but Roberts brings nothing to this movie.  From start to finish, she is a black hole on screen and adds no humor or hijinks to the proceedings. 

Conversely, the supporting cast is good.  Nick Offerman and Kathryn Hahn are hilarious as the Fitzgeralds and add a pump a good amount of jokes into the mix in very limited screen time and Tomer Sisley and Matthew Willig are satisfactory as the after-thought heavies chasing the Millers across the border.  If there is a weak link amongst the supporting players, it has to be Ed Helms who is way over-the-top (in a bad way) as a suburban drug kingpin and stands as a textbook example of bad stunt casting.

In a lot of ways, this movie reminds me of The Heat starring Melissa McCarthy and Sandra Bullock in that there are some genuinely funny moments but the connective tissue between those scenes just isn’t robust enough.  It’s one of those films that telegraphs the ending right from the outset so without a consistent flow of laugh inducing gags, the whole thing feels a bit thin.  So for me, We’re the Millers is a Netflix movie.  It will almost moderately entertain you for two thirds of its running time and then you’ll never think about it again.  Keep in mind that the more you spend on this one in terms of time and effort, the less you will enjoy it, so see it when you see it or see it not at all.

Standout Performance:  Jason Sudeikis for his haircut scene.  Hilarious.

Read More

Review: The Hangover Part III

When I think of a great movie that was really damaged by the last two legs of its trilogy the first one that comes to mind is The Matrix.  All that was good about that first film (and there was a lot) was compromised and marginalized by the overwrought cinematic trash that followed.  Even now when I catch the original Matrix film in passing, it’s hard to separate that movie from the painful dialogue, the silly plot twists, and the uninspired acting that dominated Reloaded and Revolutions.  Sadly, having watched The Hangover Part III, I can now say the exact same for that franchise.  As good a comedic adventure as the first film was, the second and now the third have ensured that it will no longer be remembered fondly.

Part three of The Hangover trilogy finds the Wolf Pack looking to take Alan to a facility in Arizona to assist him with his own emotional well-being.  Along the way, they get caught in the cross hairs of a Vegas wise guy who is desperate to find Leslie Chow, who has recently escaped from a Bangkok prison.  When the wise guy (played by John Goodman) takes Doug captive (of course), Stu (Ed Helms), Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) are forced to chase down Chow in order to make things right.

Here’s the thing, when you’re making a sequel loaded with beloved characters, you are playing with house money as fans already have a built in affinity for your protagonists.  And that’s what makes it all the more painful when a writer/director like Todd Phillips takes that good will and flushes it down the toilet.  Sure, he had already inflicted a ton of damage to the franchise with The Hangover Part II (a point-by-point copy of the first film sans the fun), but with The Hangover Part III, it’s as if he wanted to pound the proverbial nail into the coffin.  How he chose to bring about such destruction was to make a comedy that is not at all funny.

The quickest analogy I can make to this movie is the series finale of Seinfeld.  Those of you who watched the last episode will remember that far too much time and effort was spent ensuring that every bit player who ever appeared on the show would be paraded across the screen, rather than doing what they did best; setting up jokes and then delivering the laughs.  That represents part of what is wrong with The Hangover Part III.  Far too much time is spent setting up this cameo and that cameo and returning to this location and that.  Sure, it’s a nice cookie for hardcore fans of the franchise (if there are any), but not when it sacrifices screen time that would be better served setting up witty jokes or hilarious sight gags.

The second half of what goes wrong in this film is the same problem that befalls pretty much every comedian/comedic property in Hollywood.  The longer anyone (or anything) funny exists in this industry, the more inevitable it becomes that he/she begins to take himself/herself far too serious.  Part III epitomizes this notion.  The script is dark, the peril real, and the talent in the cast, well some take themselves far too serious and seem to consider themselves above the source material.  And because of this, all that is fun and charming about the first film seems like less than a distant memory.

In regards to the work of the stars, Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms seem to be going through the motions in this movie.  Clearly, the film represented a healthy paycheck to the duo and nothing more.  If either actor had a legitimate comedic moment during the film’s two hour running time, then I am hard-pressed to remember it.  On the other hand, Zach Galifianakis to his credit seems to be giving a better effort than his co-stars.  But trying to sell tired jokes and playing the funny man without a legitimate straight man along for the ride (thanks to Cooper’s and Helm’s apathy) is an unbalanced formula which amounts to delivering punch lines without setting up the jokes.

As for the rest of the cast, Justin Bartha remains an under utilized bit player (what else is new); John Goodman does nothing more than show up; and Jamie Chung, Heather Graham, Jeffrey Tambor, Mike Epps, and Melissa McCarthy show up on screen long enough to register as nothing more than a blip.  Of the supporting cast, Ken Jeong clearly stands out as he is afforded the most screen time and does an admirable job of trying to bring Chow to life from this lifeless script, but by films end even Chow comes off as bland and neutered.

So by now you have probably surmised that I would not recommend this movie.  There’s just so little to appreciate about it, no matter your expectations, that I feel hard-pressed to justify any kind of viewing scenario.  I understand that desire to watch the movie in order to complete the cycle and get “closure” for this trilogy as that was very much my own motivation for heading out to the cinema, but I must warn you that watching this movie is going to greatly devalue your affinity towards the Wolf Pack.  Take a pass on Part III and try and forget Part II.  Maybe then you’ll be able to enjoy the next time you catch The Hangover on TV.

Standout Performance: Based on effort alone, Ken Jeong gets the nod.

Read More

Review: Jeff, Who Lives at Home

I am going to cut to the chase in regards to my review of Jeff, Who Lives at Home.  Either it was a horrible piece of filmmaking or I absolutely did not get it.  If you’re a betting person, put your money down on the latter, because from start to finish this movie feels like a very poor man’s Our Idiot Brother sans any laughs whatsoever.  And as I was watching the film, eagerly anticipating a wit-inspired chuckle here or a gut-buster there, I realized that the writer and director team of Jay and Mark Duplass were cleverly trying to educate the viewer with some existential lesson on life, love, and happiness buried into the subtext of their plot.  The problem is that their message was complete nonsense and their delivery neither clever nor subtle. 

The gist of the plot is that everyone in the Thompkins family has an unsatisfying life.  The patriarch of the family died at forty-four and some fifteen years after his passing we find that his widow (Susan Sarandon) is a lonely single mom in need of companionship; his oldest son (Ed Helms) is a complete douche with marital problems and a midlife crisis, and his youngest son (Jason Segel) is an idiot who lives in his mother’s basement.  Fortunately for this family, Segel’s Jeff is actually an idiot savant who on his fate-guided path to find " a KEVIN" and enlightenment just might be able to resurrect his family from the malaise of mediocrity.  If that doesn't sound funny, then you're getting the picture.  Even if you make the assumption that the movie was poorly marketed because of the presence of Segel and Helms and frame it as a dramatic piece, it still fairs poorly.  The plot fails to flesh out the depths of apathy and resentment that have gripped this family to create any true sense of catharsis in the final act.

As for the cast, Segel absolutely sleep walks through this film, but I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that it may have been by design.  I am guessing it was his attempt at playing quirky though the problem with that approach is that he's not Zooey Deschanel so he can't pull off that kind of quirky.  Ed Helms does a great job exuding utter low rent douchebaggery.  It’s too bad the thinness of the script makes you not care, and care even less that his wife (Judy Greer) is cheating on him.  Susan Sarandon adds very little value in her role as the lonely mother and the slight plot twist with her character arc can be seen coming from a mile away.

I want to say that the movie unravels at the end but really that happens right from the start.  The best thing that came from seeing this film is that the staff had technical issues with the projector and so the fine people at AMC gave everyone in attendance a free pass.  Without the promise of a free movie pass, I can't recommend a film that starts with everyone’s life completely sucking at the outset and then sucking a little less at the close.  This may be an attempt to authentically portray real life in the eyes of the filmmakers, but for me it takes a more than a mysterious Kevin, a bad goatee, and a lesbian turn to call something entertaining (believe when I tell you that last sentence made the movie sound far more interesting than it is).  In lieu of this film, rent Our Idiot Brother – similar concept with better writing and acting.

Standout Performance:  Judy Greer.  Her characters tend to be loud, obnoxious, and/or neurotic, but in this film she hits the right notes of desperation and it makes you sympathize with her in as much as one can with an adulteress.

Read More