The Brewhaha on..."American Movie"

"For about 10 to 15 seconds man, I just stared at somebody's shit, man. To be totally honest with you, man, it was a really, really profound moment. 'Cuz I was thinkin', 'I'm 30 years old, and in about 10 seconds I gotta start cleaning up somebody's shit, man'."
-Uh...

Mark:  "This thing is turning into a theatrical mockery.  Do you know what that means?"
Mike (either stoned, or just camera shy, it's hard to tell):  "No."  (trademark nervous laugh)
Mark:  "Well, you will."

"I don't know what other people are thinking and I don't care. I'm after my American Dream and I'm starting to live it."
-Mark, in an interview with The Independent

"Not only does it offer a worthwhile portrait of an individual who embodies aspirations and desires that we can all identify with, but it shows him doing something about them. American Movie may seem to be about filmmaking (and, to a degree, it is), but it's actually much more about the man behind the camera, and all that he represents."
-James Berardinell, ReelViews

"His honorable intentions notwithstanding, Smith has preempted Borchardt's cherished Northwestern by packaging it as American Movie. With a passive-aggressiveness worthy of Warhol, he has used the camera to exacerbate a relationship of unequal power. [...] Although I don't begrudge Borchardt his year of fame, what he doesn't seem to understand about his exploitation creeps me out."
-Amy Taubin, VillageVoice.com


"American Movie," a documentary made by independent filmmaker Chris Smith, is not something for the faint of heart.  It is an unrelenting look at what has been touted for generations as the American Dream, and what one man will do to achieve it.  A chronicle of one "burnout" filmmaker Mark Borchardt and his three-year quest to get his horror film "Coven" off the ground, it has become a cult favorite since its debut in 1999.

At first, it sounds like a "making of the movie" movie.  And, from my experience, there's never anything more clinical, detached, and outright boring than a show--much less a movie--about the "making of" anything.  You can show us a segment or documentary on the making of light bulbs, or the making of cupcakes, or even the making of the video, but there's a reason why people still watch the Jersey Shore (warped as it may be) instead of that.  If there's one thing you need in a movie, it's character.  If there's another thing you need in a movie, it's also character.  And if there's another thing on top of that...

Unfortunately, the first thing I thought while watching "American Movie" was that Mark, his brain-dead buddy Mike, his uncle/producer/rich relative, and everyone else in the movie were just that, characters in a movie.  There's something unintentionally "off" with the people we spend two and a half hours with (was it that long?  I can't even remember).  It felt like there was a sense of mean-spiritedness, the sense that Mark and his efforts were all supposed to be some kind of joke, which is a wide discrepancy from the rave, heartfelt reviews I've read from others.  (Though I remember one of my peers on IMDb acknowledging a sense of "voyeurism" in watching Mark's hijinks, God forbid.)

We get a first look at our star, with his long, gangly hair and glasses that wouldn't look out of place on a paedophile (in other words, your typical guy from the 90's), with his fellow co-stars (and partners in crime) on the set of "Coven" constantly noting his "feral," "elemental" take on filmmaking.  Then, we cut to his brother, sitting on a porch and living in a world comfortably far away from Mark, as he remarks, "I thought he would become a serial killer."

So, yeah, our focal character is a budding serial killer. 

Mark's best friend is the perpetually-stoned Mike Schank, who seems to be the heart of the movie.  Where Mark is apparently an elemental and unchecked cinematographer to be reckoned with, Mike is one of the few guys I've seen in my lifetime who could play a convincing teddy bear, with his harmless, down-to-earth demeanor and his falsetto, almost uncertain tone.  His mind apparently ravaged by one too many acid trips and drunk nights out, and possibly unsure of where he even is at the moment, one can still sense the rapport between Mark and his old buddy Mike, who supports him in whatever he does.

Financing "Coven" is Mark's uncle Bill (who, as of today, is still probably wanting his fifty thousand dollars back).  Many scenes focus on Mark's interactions with his weathered old relative, who rarely leaves his trailer and whose contributions to the conversation often consist of...well, it's either vague yet insightful pieces of wisdom from an admittedly feeble man whose strength only allows him to speak when necessary, thus making him a man of few yet powerful words which become clear only upon further contemplation...or he has no clue what he's doing, who this "nephew" of his is, or why he keeps calling him the "producer" and promising to get his money back.  (I should just keep a notebook of whatever he says the next time I see it.)

I would agree with criticisms that the film went on for a bit too long.  Granted, even a twenty-minute independent movie such as "Coven" could warrant a wellspring of "extra features" such as the three-hour documentary we end up with.  However, there are several scenes that simply drag on and on, and oddly enough, I remember at least two or three of those scenes focusing on his home life.  As always, it's nice to get a look at the life of a filmmaker outside of his filmmaking, but after a while, one starts feeling like a guest who can't seem to find a polite way to leave, almost as if we're intruding on someone's home life and spending a weekend with "relatives" we've never met before.  (Perhaps "voyeurism" is the right word...)

So, as much as it might go against my religion or beliefs in character, character, character, the strongest scenes seem to tie in to the "on-the-scenes" work with "Coven," as well as his constant editing, the sound work, splicing in scenes.  However, even these scenes seem to just drag on after a while.  Granted, it's a documentary, so one can't exactly expect the climax to just hit you and leave you on the edge of your seat, but there is still a lot of the after-shooting moments which could have been left out altogether without ruining the film.

Highlights include the constant reshoots of one of the actors getting rammed into a kitchen cabinet, as well as Mike's "say no to drugs" speech, and some relatively heartfelt scenes with Mark and his daughters.  One special mention must go to a moment near(-ish) the end where Mark spends the night going over the strips of film.  While the movie in general has a lot of ending fatigue and just seems to drag on after about the five-hour mark, this scene in question was a relatively subdued reminder that, yes, filmmaking can be dull, time-consuming, and just plain difficult at times.

With documentaries such as this one, you can't really just say what kind of movie it's supposed to be.  Ultimately, it's a movie about some guys making a movie.  But is it also a tale of a man overcoming all odds, including his sheer lack of financing, crew, talent, and vision as a moviemaker, and a commentary on the social strata separating the "haves" from the "have-nots" such as Mark and his family?  Or is it just an exercise in passive-aggressive voyeurism, and a look into the world of a man clearly out of his depth?

I can't tell you that.  But if you do plan on seeing this movie, you should be prepared to answer such questions.

Note:  The Brewsky is an enthusiastic contributor and movie reviewer.  And it's that last one.

The Brewhaha on..."The Other Guys"

“I’m like a peacock!  You gotta let me fly!”
-Mark Wahlberg, as himself

“OW, my ears! How do you walk away from an explosion without it hurting your ears, man? I call B.S. on that! This is like watching Star Wars, where Luke uses the Force and escapes the Death Star without a problem, completely unrealistic!”
-Will Ferrell, as himself

“Did someone call 9-1-holy shit?”
-Samuel L. Jackson, as himself

“Are you thinkin’ what I’m thinkin’?  Aim for the bushes.”
-The Rock, as himself, about to jump off a ten-story building

“Don't let anyone spoil the wildly hilarious surprises. Ferrell and Wahlberg will double your fun. Guaranteed.”
-Peter Travers, RollingStone.com

“Ditto.”
-Me, on the above

You may have heard about “The Other Guys,” the 2010 buddy cop film starring Mark Wahlberg and Will Ferrell as the title characters on the police force.  Frankly, it’s not going to do what the Jason Bourne did for spy movies or “Unforgiven” did for Western films.  However, it does precisely what Austin Powers did for spy movies and “Blazing Saddles” did for Western films.  It’s a film which parodies everything we love and hate about police movies, and it’s a film that’s simply hilarious in its own right.

In my “Cop Out” review, another “homage” to buddy cop movies, you might remember I was willing to approach the movie on its own terms.  It’s not really a good movie, and it’s basically something the talented Kevin Smith basically churned out for a quick buck, but I was still able to appreciate “Cop Out” for its dumb, mindless, lowest-common-denominator approach (as well as its general willingness to admit that it’s not really a good movie).

“The Other Guys” (which shouldn’t even be on the same planet as that other movie) benefits from a deconstructive element of its own genre, which is present from the moment the “real” stars of the movie—one Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and one Samuel L. “Mothafucking Snakes” Jackson himself—burst through the opening credits as your run-of-the-mill gun-toting cowboy cops who kick ass and take names, leaving a trail of destruction and property damage in their wake.  Of course, the “other guys” are there to pick up where they left off.

For all intents and purposes, both the other guys and…those other guys…are basically still type casted.  Will Ferrell is still the well-meaning but ultimately destructive idiot he’s portrayed with diminishing returns in countless other movies, and Mark Wahlberg plays the emotionally-charged, temperamental straight man to Ferrell’s cornball antics.  Rounding out their trio is Michael Keaton as their chief, known for dispensing sagely pearls of wisdom (such as a wooden gun and a rape whistle).  And finally we have the “stars” themselves, the Rock and Samuel L. Jackson, who are basically every action star they’ve ever played.

Make no mistake; the previews promised us a cartoon movie, and what we get here is basically a cartoon movie.  Nowhere is this more apparent than, of course, with Ferrell himself, the alumni of SNL and long-time cartoon character ever since the powers that be in Hollywood decided he would make a good leading man.  Don’t get me wrong, though, the “cartoon” boasted by this movie is balanced out by a degree of intriguing character development, as well as its willingness to poke fun at the more cartoonish aspects of “real” action movies.  (See the quoted “Aim for the bushes” above…)

In the name of fairness, there are some scenes that are weaker than others.  The principal moment that comes to mind is toward the end, when Ferrell’s character, on the run from the law (as any good movie cop should be), is in hiding and tries to reach his wife.  For the first minute or so, it’s funny.  Then the scene keeps going, and going, and going.  (Mind you, though, when you can work someone’s grandmother into a movie like that, it’s still pretty funny anyway…)

The simple fact of the matter is, this is a good movie.  Where most other movies would do it wrong, “The Other Guys” does it right.  It’s a movie that questions, deconstructs, pokes at, and ultimately emulates every action movie you’ve ever seen, much less with two of the best comedic leads of the year.  You must see this movie.  Your friends must see this movie.  Your family and your friends’ families must see this movie.

Note:  The Brewsky is an enthusiastic contributor and movie reviewer who apparently deals in absolutes.  Seriously, it feels like you’re waiting for him to say, “You!  Shall Not!  PAAASSS!!!”

The Brewhaha on..."True Grit"

“While I sat there watchin' I gave some thought to stealin' a kiss... though you are very young, and sick... and unattractive to boot. But now I have a mind to give you five or six good licks with my belt.”
-Matt Damon, as himself, with a fourteen-year-old girl

“What…what’s with this music?  It’s…so upbeat.  What the hell, didn’t her dad just get shot?”
-A buddy of mine, who lasted thirty minutes through the 1969 version before leaving to hang himself start a bar fight watch “Fresh Prince of Bel-Air”

“Bridges doesn't have the archetypal stature of the Duke. Few ever have. But he has here, I believe, an equal screen presence. We always knew we were looking at John Wayne in the original “True Grit” (1969). When we see Rooster Cogburn in this version, we're not thinking about Jeff Bridges.”
-Roger Ebert, discussing the 2010 version

“With dazzling performances by Jeff Bridges and newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, awe-inspiring cinematography and the Coens' trademark moral paradoxes, it's sweet nostalgia, subtly shaded with melancholy and peppered with dashes of black satire.”
-Colin Covert, StarTribune.com

“The original western won John Wayne a puzzling and undeserved Oscar for finally falling off his horse. Don't expect the same miracle for Jeff Bridges. In the numbing hands of pretentious filmmakers Joel and Ethan Coen, history does not repeat itself in any way whatsoever.”
-Rex Reed, The New York Observer

Don’t get me wrong.  The Duke was, is, and will always be a national treasure.  But in that film, as that character, he was still the Duke.  A character actor he was not.  When you watch the 1969 film, it basically amounts to John Wayne babysitting.  When you watch the 2010 version, you don’t see the Duke babysitting, or even the Dude babysitting.  You see U.S. Marshall (and one-eyed fat man) Rooster Cogburn…babysitting.

I managed to catch the original “True Grit” the night before I went out to see the new version by the Coen brothers.  I will start out by saying that I am nowhere near qualified to review anything made before the 1970’s, and the John Wayne version falls into that category.  The 1969 film, made in response to the novel published barely a year before, is a very sugarcoated affair, and even for its time it was a throwback to more adventurous, idealistic Westerns.  It featured John Wayne in one of his hammier roles, co-starring with a “girl” old enough to have kids of her own.  Glen Campbell rounded out the trio as the Texas Ranger who kept getting killed.  (Chuck Norris would have been disappointed.)

Again, I am nowhere near qualified to review a John Wayne film.  But I made the mistake of watching it with a friend of mine, who thought Kim Darby looked too much like Justin Bieber, and kept yelling at her to stop playing a mannequin and start acting.  After noting the use of actual food in the dinner scenes and commenting on how Mattie’s dad was killed “in the least dignified way possible,” he gave up watching before the leads had even left town.

John Wayne’s take on Rooster Cogburn benefits from the grandfatherly aura of the Duke.  For better or worse, his Federal Marshall is a clean-cut caretaker with a calm, somewhat reassuring tone.  Much in the same way that Steven Seagal’s sole strength as an actor is his ability to play a convincing thug, the Duke is, well, the Duke.  And kids just love the Duke!  After all, he went on to star in “The Cowboys,” where he got to work with a younger cast and helped a group of schoolboys become (spoiler alert!) real cowboys.

The 1969 version, however, suffers from being just another Western.  It’s a straight-up action flick where we get stuck with this wide-eyed twenty fourteen-year-old girl trying to recruit a hardened bounty hunter to go after her father’s killer.  And the hardened bounty hunter gets stuck with her for the whole trip.  Supposedly, this fourteen-year-old girl who looks twice her age is supposed to be the main character.  Unfortunately, she is also the damsel in distress.  Frankly, it’s like making Curious George the main character in a Bond film.  It just doesn’t work.  (Speaking of which, I look forward to the new Bond film.)

Many would say the 2010 version benefits from being more “character-driven” and “darker” than the original.  Personally, I would say it benefits from being produced, written, and directed by the freaking Coen brothers.  Whether or not you find their take to be a faithful adaptation, they have a knack for dark humor and character focus over what I like to call “shoot-‘em-up, team-‘em-up, and just for good measure blow-‘em-up” movies.  This time around, the thirteen fourteen-year-old girl trying to recruit a hardened bounty hunter is given a steely resolve by Hailee Steinfeld, who is less Curious George and more a girl on a mission to find her father’s killer and make him pay.

Our hardened bounty hunter is less a hammed-up John Wayne and more of the grizzled, graying, ominous character played by Jeff Bridges.  The focus is, therefore, less on John Wayne getting drunk and falling off his horse, and more on a “hero” with some serious flaws when it comes to dealing with others.  With matter-of-fact, darkly funny dialogue supplied by the Coens (i.e. “That did not go as planned.”), Bridges takes the character and makes it his own.  Matt Damon rounds out the trio as that Texas Ranger who keeps getting killed.

Both versions benefit from a deconstruction of your average Western “shoot-‘em-up, beat-‘em-up,” etc.  While John Wayne’s version is a lighter affair, Version 2.0 is a much more hardened movie (with narration provided by an aged Mattie).  Beyond this shift in tone, though, the overall message is much the same.  Revenge is simply a tough thing to come by in the old West, whether you’re a farm girl who’s never fired a gun in her life, or just a “one-eyed fat man” falling off his horse.  And revenge is especially a tough thing to come by in the old West if you’re a Texas Ranger who keeps getting killed.

Of the two, I would say the 2010 version is better.  The lead actors alone blow the John Wayne version out of the water.  But then, that’s nothing to be surprised about.  The original was a strictly genre work, with a cartoon character of a female lead who ends up killing the pacing (that is, if my buddy has anything to say about it).  The new version…is written by the Coens.  Enough said.

Note:  The Brewsky is an enthusiastic contributor and movie reviewer who finally managed to review something from this year…what?  It was made in December?  Damn it anyway, Brewsky.

The Brewhaha on..."Grown Ups"

"Hey Spade, it’s Sandler. Where you been, you crazy asshole?  That commercial you did with Farley really sucked. It creeped me out. Come on, the guy’s dead, you shouldn’t be raiding the tomb. [...]  I need a hit. Let’s go hang out on the lake with James and Rock. Yeah, yeah, Schneider can come, too. What? No, we don’t have a script. We’ll just wing it."
-Adam Sandler, as himself

"There’s an old lady who farts a lot in the new Adam Sandler flick, Grown Ups. Seriously…she farts a lot."
-Bob Grimm, NewsReview.com

"Full of obvious jokes and schmaltzy sentiment, Grown Ups is as much fun as watching endless home movies of people you really don’t know very well."
-Allan Hunter, Express.Co.UK

"Being harsh on this film is easy, the story is absolute trash, and the characters are completely unbelievable, and poorly explained, by the end of the film the sudden 'character development' and general preachyness of the plot line will most likely leave you wishing the film will end, and considering the running time of under 2 hours, it really does feel its length."
-An IMDb reviewer, trying to give a positive review

“Grown Ups” is too many things at once, and as a result, it doesn’t even add up to the sum of its parts.  Half a dozen great comedians, their apparently supermodel wives, the mid-life crises associated with raising a family, childhood friends brought back together for one last weekend out at the beach, a family-friendly comedy with gross-out humor sprinkled throughout…and almost nothing resembling plot or character development.  It’s the marketable film studios would kill for--the comedy version of “The Expendables,” if you will.  It’s also an absolute train wreck.

I remember when a friend tried to talk me into seeing “Wedding Crashers,” which stars Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson as the least convincing romantic leads of the decade.  I didn’t really want to see it, because they aren’t really my favorite actors in the world and I wasn’t crazy about the premise.  I wouldn’t have much to say about Wedding Crashers if they had simply stuck with the premise of two horndogs crashing weddings, but not five minutes in, the film introduces an honest-to-goodness love story, and the rest of the film is Owen Wilson struggling to convince the girl (and audience) that he would make a good boyfriend.  And struggling to act.

“Grown Ups” doesn’t stray too far from its own basic premise, which is the touching tale of four or five adult man-children spending a weekend on vacation with their kids while having various hijinks.  I’m also willing to respect the film’s creators for not simply making “Without a Paddle 2:  Male Gigolo” and trying to introduce some subplots beyond “Chris Rock, Kevin James, Adam Sandler, and David Spade walk into the woods with their kids.”

The only problem is that the execution for all of these subplots is simply half-assed.  The comedian’s wife starts arguing with him, then they’re like, “No, we’re fine now.”  Kids don’t get along with their parents?  No problem, just take them to the water park.  How about the childhood rivals in basketball showing up to challenge them?  Yeah, spoiler alert.  Guess how far into the movie it is before they get challenged to the B-ball game.  On YouTube, it would be Part 10 of 10.  As in, the last ten minutes of the movie.  (However, it helps that the movie doesn’t treat the game too seriously.)

Our lead characters are Chris Rock, Kevin James, Adam Sandler, and David Spade.  For all intents and purposes, they simply play themselves.  The emotional crux of the film, oddly enough, is much the same as “The Expendables” theme of male bonding.  There are moments throughout their weekend where they sit back in their lawn chairs and crack wise about their mommas.  It’s basically an afternoon with the guys, as they reminisce and talk about their families.  It’s like going to a family picnic or something.  Except it’s a movie.

Then the family vacation goes into full-blown cartoon mode.  (Obviously I’m not averse to cartoons, but it’s definitely out of place in this movie.)  To give you an idea of what I mean, Rob Schneider is the unofficial fifth member of the quartet of guys.  He’s a “sensitive” guy who’s married a sixty-five-year-old nymphomaniac and cooks organic foods.  He has two hot daughters, and one really ugly one.  He keeps getting shot in the foot.  In other words, we get to chill for a moment with four very talented, snarky comics, and then we get a cartoon character who likes to engage in screwball comedy.  It would be like “The Kings of Comedy” or “Blue Collar Comedy Tour” if they decided to add that “you can do it!” guy from “The Waterboy” at the last minute.

So overall, is “Grown Ups” a good movie?  No.  It’s a half-assed movie, and whatever it doesn’t half-ass, it still decides to handle with kid gloves.  Whether it’s getting to know your kids, reconnecting with friends and family, or even something as simple as the slapstick of, say, shooting your friends with arrows and swinging too far on the tire swing, the film either gives us too much or too little.  Beyond the simple title of "comedy," the film’s creators don’t know what kind of movie they’re making, and the end result is an underwhelming movie and an obvious cash-in.

Note:  The Brewsky is an enthusiastic contributor and movie reviewer.  The above Adam Sandler quote was taken out of context, and was made up by one of the quoted reviewers.  The above quote does not necessarily represent any actual conversation between Adam Sandler and David Spade.  Still, would it really surprise you?