She might have been a rom-com darling for most of her career, but there’s no mistaking now that Cameron Diaz is a natural bad girl. Sure, part of it might have to do with survival of the fittest; raunchy R-rated comedies are the new cool kid in class and those who can’t play that game will find themselves jobless. But Diaz might have even upped her stock with her performance in “Bad Teacher,” a movie that’s unapologetically crude if not to the fault of absurdity. Nevertheless, foul-mouthed middle school teacher Elizabeth Halsey makes for an amusing character study (no worries, you can skate by on the cliff notes).

Writers Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky have essentially taken the laundry list of what qualities constitute a good teacher and ensured that Elizabeth embodies or does the opposite. To top it off (no pun intended), her motivation throughout the entire film is to raise enough money to afford breast implants, or as her character would be more apt to say, “a new pair of tits,” so that she might be able to woo the attractive and wealthy new substitute (Justin Timberlake).

Entire films have been built from shallower foundations, but for those bothered by issues of plausibility, “Bad Teacher” will be offensive in more ways than the many it already intended. How someone of Elizabeth’s nature ever got a teaching position in the first place will be the one question that crosses the mind of every viewer at some point during the film. Once you get past that whole in logic, it becomes easier to appreciate the way “Bad Teacher” allows us a chance to imagine what the world’s worst teacher would be like.

Elizabeth is about to finish her first (and only) year at John Adams Middle School somewhere in Illinois and wed the “man of her dreams” only he and his mother are on to the fact that she only wants him for the money. Her plan having failed, she returns to “JAMS” as a means of keeping herself (and her poor lifestyle) afloat. Her return reignites the gym teacher’s (Jason Segel) advances and a rivalry with her polar opposite, the spunky learning-lover Amy Squirrel (Lucy Punch). Other than Diaz, Punch is the only one who seems aware of how absurd the film is and consequently she pushes it further with her delightfully quirky performance.

The depths to which both Elizabeth and Amy will stoop to get what they want or ruin the other have no limit. Their schemes are cleverly concocted, though they’re along the lines of your typical high jinks. Putting aside that their entire story relies on an unusually large suspension of disbelief, Eisenberg and Stupnitsky show a knack for writing easily digested crowd-pleasers. The array of other supporting characters could be described as either run-of-the-mill or perfectly adequate. Timberlake makes few waves as a socially oblivious dork who as it turns out has a passion for dry-humping and John Michael Higgins delivers exactly what’s expected of him: acting like John Michael Higgins. Phyllis Smith brings her “The Office” character over to this film with a measure of success, but only those unfamiliar with her will be impressed.

The small ounce of a “good message” comes with a slight lowering of Elizabeth’s superficial expectations after her grand plan unfurls. The natural thought here would be to completely ignore any sort of moral responsibility to end on a warm and fuzzy note considering all previous material dismisses it anyway. Yet some sort of Hollywood obligation must have nagged for awhile. Forget Elizabeth, the fact that Segel’s character Russell would want anything to do with her beginning, middle or end of the film says a lot (though quite little) about his character.

The R-rated comedy trend continues to thrive with “Bad Teacher,” though for better or worse it’s hard to say. Calling it a guilty pleasure comedy might be the most apt description, as even those who really enjoy it will admit just where it falls on the preposterous spectrum. Considering many previous Cameron Diaz vehicles have fallen into the guilty pleasure category too, maybe the actress has been in her comfort zone all along.

3/5 Stars

Bad Teacher
Directed by Jake Kasdan
Written Gene Stupnitsky, Lee Eisenberg
Starring: Cameron Diaz, Lucy Punch, Jason Segel, Justin Timberlake

To use a completely irrelevant but title-appropriate expression, when it comes to comedy, women tend to be the bridesmaids and never the bride. Prior to “Bridesmaids,” the only mainstream comedy driven by females that I can recall (at least in the Judd Apatow era) is Tina Fey’s “Baby Mama” back in 2008. Comedies preceded by a “romantic-” given the nature of their intended demographic, don’t count, at least not in the eyes of the general public. Fittingly produced by Apatow, “Bridesmaids” fights all these assumptions and historical tendencies better than you’d expect.

Star and writer Kristen Wiig and co-writer Annie Mumolo pick a fight with the biggest and most relentless rom-com formula at the party: the wedding story. It’s not exactly the easiest way to challenge the general perspective on women-centered comedies, but if successfully avant-garde enough, has the greatest potential for turning the genre on its head a bit while still appealing to the women who still prefer to indulge in these repetitive story lines.

Some of “Bridesmaids” most effective marketing came from a critic who called it “‘The Hangover’ for women.” The only things the two films have in common is that a wedding sets in the events in motion and they both expressed a desire to push R-rated boundaries. “Bridesmaids” has a much more traditional comedy structure and heavy doses of romance.

Annie (Wiig) has hit a mid-30s crisis: her dream of opening a bakery came true but got cut down thanks to the recession, she has a crappy living situation and she keeps going back to a guy (Jon Hamm) who’s rich and good-looking but doesn’t care about her. Her one rock has been her life-long best friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph). When Lillian gets engaged, Annie assumes the duty of Maid of Honor, but the tremendously pretty and rich Helen, another bridesmaid, seems intent to steal that out from under her, which pushes Annie over the edge.

The script puts a particular emphasis on developing Annie’s character to the fullest, which hurts the comedic rhythm of the film a bit, but ultimately makes “Bridesmaids” a stronger film. The movie doesn’t quite live up to being billed as hysterical with exception of a few boundary-pushing scenes and takes awhile to get going, but the emotional parts don’t set off a chain reaction of eye-rolling, which alone puts “Bridesmaids” in a higher tier as far as rom-coms go. A montage scene toward the beginning when Annie bakes herself a singular ornate cupcake and then eats it for lack of a better idea drastically slows the film down, but might contain more intelligence in those two minutes than most romantic comedies can fit in two hours.

Most of the heart comes from a terrific and believable relationship between Annie and Lillian. Their scenes drag on a bit as these are two talented improvisers volleying the humor back and forth. They carry on like any two best girlfriends but with a touch only true comedians can offer. “Bridesmaids” mostly showcases Wiig’s off-beat awkward humor. Annie comes across as a lady-like Larry David character, someone you pity to death and care about but who can be completely nuts and usually causes all her own problems by reacting poorly to adversity.

Outside of the cat-fighting between Annie and Helen, the rest of the bridesmaids get short- changed (another reason to separate this from “The Hangover”) except for Melissa McCarthy as Megan, a character so multi-dimensional that you never know just what to expect from her. As much as this will feel like speaking poison, she could warrant her own spin-off.

“Bridesmaids” doesn’t break the mold and completely usurp female comedy conventions, but some of the film’s best characteristics do offer proof that women can be funny in a mainstream way, at least when the characters receive thoughtful treatment. The R-rated gross-out humor could have backfired, but it was treated in such a way that it effectively enhanced the story and fit the characters, something most rom-coms that try similar tactics fail to achieve.

Hopefully Wiig keeps churning out films and can train some other hopeful lady comics to follow in her footsteps so that romantic comedies can truly be enjoyed by everyone again.

3.5/5 Stars

Bridesmaids
Directed by Paul Feig
Written by Kristen Wiig, Annie Mumolo
Starring: Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, Rose Byrne, Melissa McCarthy

In a world post-”Avatar” and “District 9,” where lack of creativity can no longer be blamed on the limitations of special effects (if that was ever a scapegoat), the goal of the sci-fi movie has been to innovate. Filmmakers have completely abandoned the minefield of clichés that is the retro “Area 51″ alien with a big green head and black ovular eyes. Now they’re into alien design with insect-like features, especially multiple extremities. 

“Paul,” on the other hand, dives right back into the old school. Our titular little green (greenish-blue?) man not only reinforces whatever stereotypes exist, but the reason is written into his back story in the form of a lighthearted but sentimental homage to the sci-fi films of yore, particularly Steven Spielberg’s two infamous entries, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and “E.T.”

But above all else, “Paul” is a red-blooded on-the-run comedy that rejoices (quite innocently if you can believe it) in profanity with a self-irreverence that makes it hard for any honest geek/nerd/dork to dismiss.

For starters, after a prologue of sorts, the film opens at Comic-Con. Clive (Nick Frost) and Graeme (Simon Pegg) are two British buddies, one a sci-fi writer and the other an illustrator. After the convention, they aim to travel the Southwest and visit all the alleged UFO landing/spotting sites. They get exactly what they bargained for when a car wreck reveals Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen), a scrawny bug-eyed alien wearing cargo shorts and flip-flops who’s on the run from some feds. After Clive pisses his pants and Graeme is assured Paul won’t anally probe him, they embark on a road trip with Agent Zoil (Jason Bateman) and his cronies (Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio) in pursuit.

Say what you will about modern R-rated comedy, but “Paul” is a departure for “Superbad” and “Adventureland” filmmaker Greg Mottola. Although he manages at least some of the heart of those two films, “Paul” is foremost an exercise in goofy. Pegg and Frost wrote the script, so the comedy with an homage to another genre makes sense, but you’d expect a bit more sophistication from Mottola. Instead, he succeeds by recognizing the difference and playing to the strengths of the film, which is magnify the silliness and embrace the unoriginality. He uses melodramatic foreshadowing to cut the scenes from pursuer to pursued to compensate for the typical plot and he lets his actors take over with their own wit to keep them vibrant despite being one-dimensional.

For Pegg and Frost, this is not akin to their films with Edgar Wright. There’s the homage angle, but the satire is not as biting, nor is “Paul” an execution of homage before comedy but the other way around. “Paul” packs in references to sci-fi classics, but in a way that re-evokes the bright-eyed wonder that we first associated with the honored films when they came out. Music also plays heavily into this element of the film from the band at a local bar playing John Williams’ “Cantina Band” to other Williams/Spielberg-inspired scores.

You won’t have to catch all the references to like “Paul” and appreciate what it is. Kristen Wiig helps drastically in this way by changing up the main character dynamic and playing what could only be described as a “born-again sinner.” But there’s no “Doubt” that those who like “Paul” the most will be the science-fiction fans it caters to; it does little to try and make first contact outside its target demographic. Given the premise, no one who presses play should be surprised by that, so don’t expect any sympathy from this critic should you be.

3.5/5 Stars

Paul
Directed by Greg Mottola
Written by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost
Starring: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Seth Rogen (voice), Kristen Wiig

There was a day when Vince Vaughn used to do comedies. That day was only five years ago, but it seems like ages since a trademark Vaughn tirade caught laughs like a fishing net. His talents are squeezed into “The Dilemma,” a drama that masquerades as a comedy using the guise of Vaughn and comedian Kevin James. The film never recovers from this marketing trickery, namely because it still tries to punch in the humor anyway.

There are certainly worse subjects to center a comedy around than infidelity, but just because that’s not domestic abuse or something that can be prosecuted by law doesn’t make “The Dilemma” any more entertaining. Vaughn’s Ronny does find himself in some humorous predicaments, but it always comes back to his choice on whether to tell his friend Nick that his wife (Winona Ryder) is cheating on him.

The contradiction in tone here has no remedy. Screenwriter Allan Loeb seems to have a grasp on drama, but the humor never works the way it ought to in a film with Vaughn and James that so clearly touts itself as capable of delivering laughs. Channing Tatum shockingly delivers the funnier moments as an insecure tattooed bachelor named Zip, the one sleeping with Ryder’s character, Geneva.

Ron Howard, in an odd film given his resume, doesn’t seem to embrace the true tone of the script either. He throws in some scenes depicting the lies that Ronny tells to his girlfriend Beth (Jennifer Connelly) to cover up the information he learned. They intend to add a visual humor element but feel completely out of place in mainstream comedy. In fact, one could argue that “The Dilemma” might have been more effective envisioned as an independent film or something in that style. Indies have a way of mixing drama and humor and “The Dilemma” could use a lesson or five in making that hybrid work.

Vaughn’s experience in some independent films and non-traditional comedies actually makes him a good fit for Ronny, someone who we must sympathize with in order to stand watching this movie, which in fact does stay watchable. It’s only when the film requires him to be mainstream comedy funny that he falls flat as protagonist.

Despite wrapping you up in how the events will unfold, “The Dilemma” suggests nothing of substance to its audience. It’s like eating bland candy or drinking flavored water: sure, you can do keep ingesting it, but you know you’re not getting anything from it other than empty artificial flavoring. Tolerable filmmaking doesn’t imply a satisfactory film experience. As much as “The Dilemma” certainly speaks some truth about relationships, it does so most matter-of-factly and in constant violation of expectations in terms of the level of humor.

—

2/5 Stars

—

The Dilemma
Directed by Ron Howard
Written by Allan Loeb
Starring: Vince Vaughn, Kevin James, Winona Ryder, Jennifer Connelly

“Broadway Danny Rose,” other than featuring Woody Allen as a neurotic character attached to the entertainment industry in some fashion, has a much wider appeal than much of Allen’s other work. Instead of targeting the upper-middle class with societal rants and characters more concerned with their personal and social lives than anything else, “Danny Rose” is for the working-class folk, a story that aims to humble the Hollywood or Broadway ego that believes that you have to be self-serving to be in show business.

The story of the film is told by a bunch of entertainers at the Carnegie Deli in Manhattan, reminiscing about Rose (Allen), an agent for the most obscure acts in New York back in the ’50s and ’60s. One of them claims to have the best Danny Rose story and his telling serves as narration to the film.

The story revolves around Rose and his biggest talent, Lou Canova (Nick Apollo Forte), an old-fashioned Italian crooner doing covers of Sinatra and all kinds of classic tunes from what back then was considered a “bygone era,” but Lou is having a resurgence. Problem is he’s an alcoholic and a womanizer. He insists on having the woman he’s having an affair with attend his big performance at the Waldorf (that could get him a national gig). Other problem is, this Tina (Mia Farrow) was told Lou was cheating on her, so now she’s run off to her Italian mob family and through strange circumstances, the mob wants to knock Danny off.

There are elements of classic comedy here, which is why the black and white works for “Danny Rose.” At the same time, it’s a nostalgic film (the early ’80s was full of that for Allen) and an intimate one.

Without spoiling too much, the key to “Danny Rose” relies in the conflict between self- interest and dependency on others. In a way, it’s Allen’s way of saying thank you or perhaps apologizing to those that have been part of his personal journey.

No one does it alone, especially not Danny Rose, a character whose living is dependent on the talents and aspirations of others and who lives solely by the advice he remembers from deceased relatives. Then there’s Lou, who can’t perform unless Tina is there but loves his wife dearly, and then Tina, who can’t make any major decision without consulting a psychic elderly woman.

“Danny Rose” has some memorable Woody Allen quotes and classically comical situations such as he and Farrow’s Tina “wriggling” their way out of some ropes tying them together as a former escape artist client of Danny’s used to say, or when they’re chased into the Macy’s Day Parade balloon warehouse.

The film is simplistic but truthful and it’s nice to see Allen make a point that’s so universal instead of one about affluent people solving their life crises.

—

4/5 Stars

—

Broadway Danny Rose
Written and Directed by Woody Allen
Starring: Woody Allen, Mia Farrow, Nick Apollo Forte

The French film that “Dinner for Schmucks” draws its inspiration from, “Le Diner de Cons,” was successful because it made us seriously ponder who the real idiot was — the up-and- coming businessman or the dolt he must invite to a business dinner. With “Schmucks,” you seriously ponder if the real idiot has been you for watching the thing in the first place. Good news is if you can make it through the bumbling first half, “Schmucks” turns itself around in almost redeeming fashion.

Paul Rudd plays Tim and Steve Carell plays Barry. The former works at an Equity Firm and seeks a big promotion; the latter works for the IRS and makes dioramas featuring dead mice dressed as people. Their paths cross because after hitting Barry with his car, Tim realizes he’s a perfect fit for the “idiot dinner” that his boss has invited him to, one that he learns will have implications for his future at the firm. Unfortunately, Barry is a bit of a leech, and what Tim expects to be a brief dinner that he can forget about later turns into 48 hours of mind- numbing stupidity.

Not until Tim gets stuck deep in the shenanigans does any real humor come out of “Schmucks.” At first, writers Michael Handelman and David Guion (co-writers of the barely seen comedy “The Ex” starring Jason Bateman and Zach Braff) determine that Barry’s idiocy justifies him instigating the film’s events with any absurd action they deem helpful to the story. While we learn eventually just how clueless Barry really is, his character had not been established as so socially inconsiderate as to instant message with Tim’s stalker Darla (Lucy Punch), the event that sets everything into motion. Once that snowball gets rolling, the situational comedy that ends up working does come out of it, but that singular action was weakly constructed, topping the long and bad highlight reel of the first act.

The moment that turns around “Dinner for Schmucks” completely comes at an important business meeting between Tim and a Swiss billionaire looking to invest with the firm. Tim’s expecting a letdown because his girlfriend, Julie (Stephanie Szostak), who was supposed to attend with him to talk art with the investor’s wife, has walked out on Tim, partially thanks to Barry. In hopes of saving the day, Barry recruits Darla the psycho to pose as Julie without telling Tim about it. Barry and Darla join the meeting, which doesn’t go quite how you’d expect.

Although spurred by the recurring “accidental cell phone switch” gag, the key is that the scene gets you to think “wow, Barry really is a total idiot!” and the whole thing will likely crumble beneath Tim, including his job and relationship. Finally, Carell’s Barry starts to feel like a real character. Although not a cure-all for the film’s ills, that establishment works wonders on your ability to merely enjoy it at all.

We’ve known for a while that Carell can do the idiot thing. From “Anchorman” to seven seasons of “The Office” on NBC, no one does the clueless guy better or to greater comic effect. He churns Barry into a fairly likable numbskull, but the character operates as Michael Scott on “The Office” and Brick Tamland from “Anchorman” combined into one schizophrenic person. At one moment he’s sweetly screwing everything up, the next he’s laughing at a chimpanzee on television. Given the writing, it’s not entirely evident just how stupid (or what kind of stupid) Barry is supposed to be. Only toward the end does it take shape. Director Jay Roach (“Meet the Parents,” “Austin Powers”) also finds his groove here too.

“Schmucks” loosely follows the French film, the big change being the actual dinner itself, which never happens in the original. Here, it serves as the last-ditch effort for laughs by introducing bizarre peripheral characters in the form of the other idiot guests, the highlight being a woman who acts as a psychic medium for dead animals. Some of the components of this finale are meant to serve the individual subplots for Barry and Tim, which along with a few laughs make it worthwhile. We learn, for example, that Barry’s wife left him because, as he puts it, “he lost the clitoris.” Jokes aside, it’s part of what allows Tim to see Barry’s humanity and puts a nice touch on their relationship, which is the heart of the story and what made “Le Diner de Cons” so terrific.

Ultimately, however, the setup does the payoff no justice and “Schmucks” never fully washes out that first lengthy bad taste. So for different reasons, the question of true idiocy remains unanswered — or simply that we’re all idiots, including Hollywood.

—

2.5/5 Stars

—

Dinner for Schmucks
Directed by Jay Roach
Written by Michael Handelman and David Guion, Francis Veber (“Le Diner de Cons”)
Starring: Paul Rudd, Steve Carell, Stephanie Szostak, Zach Galifianakis

Judd Apatow delivers again in what is easily his most poignant comedy while still staying true to the antics of his usual band of characters. “Knocked Up” is able to still deliver a lot of the laughs while being honest and meaningful: in other words, something for both guys and girls to enjoy equally. Although some might argue that both the humor and sincerity kind of cheat each other out of realizing their full potential, I say the strategy works perfectly.

The true quality of this film emerges in the simple contrast between its main characters: Ben, a 23-year-old jobless stoner (Rogen), and Alison, an up-and-coming talent for TV network E! (Heigl). The fact that they have irresponsible sex and Alison gets pregnant forces their different lives together, which allows for a lot of humor in addition to serious relationship drama. With some great writing, Apatow really finds a way to make this a movie everyone can see, enjoy, laugh at and take something away from — a success, basically.

If you’re a girl, you will love Heigl if for some reason you don’t already, which means you’re one of no people who doesn’t watch “Grey’s Anatomy” and falls into the target demographic for this film. I would go as far as to say she’s so talented that she’s rather above this film and doesn’t fit. Both she and Leslie Mann, who plays her sister, have a great rep on screen and turn this into a film that can be almost as much for girls as it is for guys.

For the guys, Rogen is great in his first leading role and his posse of friends including Jason Segel and Jonah Hill keep the comic relief coming quickly if you feel there isn’t enough of it. Their humor doesn’t dominate the film, but there’s a healthy dose — I didn’t find it shortchanged although it was not exactly side-splitting. Rogen is most skilled at being able to do both the romantic comedy and the stoner comedy and not seeming unnatural.

Of all the films he produces, the ones Apatow directs (this film and “40-Year-Old Virgin”) seem to be the most meaningful ones. His style is very natural and allows for focus on the situations, dialogue and characters, portraying them in a way that is truest to real life. In this sense, “Knocked Up” trounces “Virgin.” If you’ve been in a serious relationship, you’ve heard all these lines before and of course unplanned pregnancy is a very real occurrence in this world with a set of consequences and predictable actions. The fact that he found a way to do this while still including his trademarks is a testament to his grip on the film industry and will guarantee him a lot more success until someone can match his comedic prowess. Until then, any films with the Apatow tag on them will be the most anticipated comedies each year.

—

4.5/5 Stars

—

Knocked Up
Written and Directed by Judd Apatow
Starring: Seth Rogen, Katherine Heigl, Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann, Jason Segel

What started in 1977 with “Kentucky Fried Movie” continues again in “The Naked Gun,” a film version of the cop drama-mocking TV series “Police Squad!” only this time detective/cop films are the culprit, seemingly perfect fodder for spoofing and the Zucker, Abrahams and Zucker one-two punch of subtle literalist deadpan and preposterous gags. The only real difference between this and 1980′s “Airplane!” is that Leslie Nielsen takes command of this film as opposed to an all-cast effort.

Nobody must be able to keep a straighter face than Nielsen. As Lt. Frank Drebin, the things he must do and say while remaining ignorant to their comedic value are absurd in quantity and quality. Drebin is when James Bond meets Inspector Clouseau — he’s completely oblivious yet he knows exactly what he’s doing. As contradictory as that sounds, it’s completely true. Nielsen does both incredible deadpan and slapstick, a highly specialized skill for a comedian, and unfortunately for the rest of Nielsen’s career, that’s all he really has. Nevertheless, it’s perfect for “The Naked Gun.”

Unlike “Airplane!,” this film has to be a bit more plot-focused because the cop/detective genre necessitates it. “Airplane!” could descend into utter chaos, whereas “The Naked Gun” feels obligated to make sense in some regard. All you need to know is that O.J Simpson’s character got shot and the investigation leads to the uncovering of a possible assassination attempt on the life of Queen Elizabeth II. The challenge for the viewer is to forget making sense of what’s going on and pay attention to the small details that make these films even funnier. In some scenes this is easier than others and for the most part, the easier it is, the better “The Naked Gun” gets.

A lot of the time these are the laughs that make you smile inside instead of laugh out loud, but especially toward the end when the humor becomes more slapstick, “The Naked Gun” really takes off (pardon the “Airplane!” lingo). Another fun film from this team.

—

3.5/5 Stars

—

The Naked Gun (1988)
Directed by David Zucker
Written by Jerry Zucker, Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Pat Proft
Starring: Leslie Nielsen, Priscilla Presley, Ricardo Montalban, O.J. Simpson

There’s a reason that movies based on Saturday Night Live sketches are looked at as the bottom of the barrel, and therefore a reason why “The Ladies Man” starring Tim Meadows back in 2000 was the last attempt. With the show regaining a bit of momentum, Universal gave it another go with “MacGruber.” For the most part, it’s another swing and a miss.

The film is based on the character portrayed by Will Forte — a dumb MacGyver, basically. Interesting, considering “MacGyver” is a TV show most of the film’s target demographic has only heard of in reference and not actually seen. (I always remembered it as the show Patty and Selma loved on “The Simpsons.”) MacGruber’s one rule is “no guns,” but that’s not the centerpiece of the film’s concept; MacGruber is simply a mullet-bearing government operative who’s dumb and unorthodox in every way.

“MacGruber” pins its laughs on lewd jokes and bizarre partial male nudity. At one point, MacGruber creates a “distraction” with some celery. So despite the opportunity for action hero satire, “MacGruber” writers Forte, John Solomon and Jorma Taccone (also the director) decide ridiculous and raunchy will be their biggest laughs. The cleverness is limited to character names (Val Kilmer plays Dieter Von Cunth) and Kristen Wiig writhing on the floor of a coffee shop at the sound of gunfire in her earpiece.

Wiig and co-star Ryan Phillippe (Lt. Dixon Piper) are mostly there to counter the obnoxious, repetitive and blunt behavior of Forte’s MacGruber. He finds moments of humor, but he simply operates on just a few different levels: dumb, trash-talking and overly emotional. I guess he found some success on SNL with the character, but there’s not much longevity to these shenanigans.

At least “MacGruber” doesn’t attempt, try or pretend to be something more than the mindless adult entertainment it offers. Hundreds of films have done it better and hundreds will do it worse. The only problem with mindless comedy is that no one remembers the middle guy.

—

2/5 Stars

—

MacGruber
Directed by Jorma Taccone
Written by Will Forte, John Solomon and Jorma Taccone
Starring: Will Forte, Kristen Wiig, Ryan Phillippe, Val Kilmer

There’s not a lot of explicit or physical humor in “Planes, Trains and Automobiles,” but such is the case with most John Hughes comedies: you get more of a natural, every-day sort of a humor in a film that’s just as family-oriented as it is a comedy. This film is mainly a story about two strangers coming together despite their quirky differences, with the goal of just getting home as all their travel plans go awry. It’s not clever, it’s not farcical, it’s just real, very real.

Steve Martin and John Candy put their comedic talents together to drive each other crazy in “Planes.” Both are on their way home for Thanksgiving when their flight to Chicago from New York ends up landing in Wichita, Kansas. Martin plays a business man with a sour attitude towards people when things aren’t pleasant and Candy plays a loud-mouthed shower curtain ring salesman who has some unusual habits. Naturally the two don’t get along and despite their every intention of separating, they find themselves back together, facing a myriad of rough situations.

Most of the laughs come from how these two treat each other in addition to the one you have at their misery and expense. The two make a great duo from the moments where they both hate each other to the more sincere ones. The truth is that this plot could happen to any of us (string of bad luck aside) and that’s what makes it so likable. We all have to deal with people we can’t stand and sometimes in the worst of situations. There’s also a really touching element about family in the film that takes you by surprised but isn’t unwarranted.

—

3.5/5 Stars

—

Planes, Trains and Automobiles (1987)
Written and Directed by John Hughes
Starring: Steve Martin, John Candy

“The Pink Panther” does not actually focus on Clouseau’s character as the legacy has left myself and the younger generations to believe. Sellers steals the movie (which in fact makes its climax rather awkward), but the plot focuses on a jewel thief named Sir Charles Lytton (David Niven) who is after the Pink Panther diamond from a princess (Claudia Cardinale). His mistress and accomplice is Clouseau’s wife (Capucina) and at a ski resort they attempt to get close to the princess and her diamond, with Mrs. Clouseau resorting to her womanly wiles to distract her husband and Sir Charles’ young nephew George (Robert Wagner).

This story takes quite some time to get going and frankly the film is a laughless bore for about 45 minutes. Sellers hasn’t quite gotten enough screen time to get into his slapstick groove going and the plot is all setup to this point. Then the farce truly begins, predominantly with the bedroom scene in which Mrs. Clouseau hides Charles and George in her room after her wacky husband comes home.

It’s a fact that the film was never intended to center on Clouseau, but when he was stealing his scenes, veteran director Blake Edwards should have made some adjustments or taken his liberties as co-writer of the script to favor Sellers a bit more. Our focus as viewers never hones in on any one character. As hard as we try to hone in on Clouseau, it doesn’t work because the story does not favor him.

As a comedy, the last hour redeems the snore-inducing first act with some terrific scenes like when two thieves find themselves in identical gorilla suits and the “getaway” scene with Clouseau and his men chasing after the thieves and everyone essentially going around in circles. It’s classic humor from the last decade of the 20th Century in which this type of humor was still considered in style.

But what lingers on after the film ends? Henry Mancini and our animated panther friend. Maybe those elements are not the best part of this film, but they’re responsible for the many follow ups and reincarnations of the series over the last 45-plus years.

—

3/5 Stars

—

The Pink Panther (1963)
Directed by Blake Edwards
Written by Maurice Richlin and Blake Edwards
Starring: Peter Sellers, Capucine, David Niven, Robert Wagner, Claudia Cardinale

Despite being a child of the ’90s, somehow I missed “Heavyweights” entirely. Considering the similarities it shares with “The Mighty Ducks” movies such as actors Kenan Thompson and Shaun Weiss, I’m almost embarrassed. Regardless, there’s still plenty to appreciate about “Heavyweights” 15 years later in spite of its silliness — and it’s more than just a joke about the ineptitude of the Buffalo Bills teams of the ’90s.

For one, it was written and directed by Judd Apatow, who has a majority hold on the comedies of the last decade and for two, it marks one of Ben Stiller’s first prominent roles as fitness wack-job Tony Perkis, who takes over a once-adored fat camp and harasses the kids.

Good thing “Heavyweights” was made then or it may never have surfaced, seeing as the age of political correctness and weight sensitivity has befallen us. The film is not cruel at all in its depiction of overweight campers, so parents surfing around for slightly older kid films and coming across this one shouldn’t be concerned about that factor, but there’s no doubt that such a concept would be hard to get off the ground, especially at Disney, in the 21st Century.

Co-written by Apatow and Steven Brill, writer of “The Mighty Ducks” films, it was as if the two conspired to plant a seed for a type of humor that kids my age at the time would come to identify as their own as they entered the PG-13 and R-rated age. Tony Perkis, for example, is the spitting character image of Stiller’s White Goodman from “Dodgeball” and yet to me he is just as amusing doing his patented whispery intimidating voice now despite my countless repeated viewings of “Dodgeball.”

There’s also a classic overnight camp comedy sense of humor in “Heavyweights” like the kids getting beat in sports by their rival camp, an awkward dance mixer with a normal girls camp and when the kids unload the candy stashes they’ve snuck in camp into secret compartments — as well as the run-of-the-mill fart jokes. Characters such as Tony’s hysterical right-hand European man Lars, however, were way ahead of their time.

“Heavyweights” is pretty immature and excludes girls (because fat girls would be too taboo for the ’90s). Its typical camp movie plot as well as its “overthrow-the-bad-guy” story arch – - which ruled the ’90s — come off as stale. But ignore those distractions and “Heavyweights” is a funny, quotable movie with some classic scenes, which is all a kid (or someone trying to go back and grab some nostalgia) really wants.
—

3.5/5 Stars

—

Heavyweights
Directed by Judd Apatow
Written by Judd Apatow, Steve Brill
Starring: Ben Stiller, Tom McGowan

Everything that can be said about an actual date night (namely predictable) can be said about “Date Night.” No denying that stars Steve Carell and Tina Fey possess the most universal and multi-generational comic chops of any two comedians working today, but they certainly have to work to chew “Date Night” into something palatable.

Contrived best describes Josh Klausner’s script, but a film this processed comes into being at the top of the chain in Hollywood. In the eyes of a producer, “Date Night” attempts to combine the enduring appeal of action films with the relatability of a husband-wife comedy. In other words, plenty of wise-cracks about “the kids” in the midst of unfriendly gunfire. Fortunately, Fey and Carell manage to rise above it a majority of the time and not just comically speaking.

The two play Phil and Claire Foster, a middle-aged married couple with two kids who try to make an effort to spend more time together and be intimate but fail given their jobs and roles as parents. After their friends (cameos by Kristen Wiig and Mark Ruffalo) mention they’re getting divorced, they realize it’s time to do something special and head to Manhattan for a night out at an overpriced seafood restaurant. Without a reservation, they have no luck, but they take the reservation of the Tripplehorns to get in anyway, only the Tripplehorns are apparently wanted by some bad folk. The date night turns into a fight for their lives as they become tangled in a web of NYC corruption — not exactly easy to deal with for a couple from New Jersey.

Carell’s performance generally sticks with straight-laced husband, which makes his occasional jumps into typical wackiness more effective. Weird to say that it’s good he’s less himself and more a typical character, but it fits. Fey seems a bit out of a place in a wife-y role (as far as the comedy), but she works her charms impressively. Masters of improvising, the two have a lot of apparent fun, but more impressively they effectively work the odd pauses during the action for sincere/touching husband and wife redefining their relationship moments. These scenes would completely derail most films with lesser stars, but “Date Night” never once goes under with them at the helm.

So while little praise can be heaped on this attempt to exploit the date night market in an anything but subtle way, few films of this ilk can actually back up the claim that they’re entertaining and likable like “Date Night” does despite the myriad of shortcomings.

—

3/5 Stars

—

Date Night
Directed by Shawn Levy
Written by Josh Klausner
Starring: Steve Carell, Tina Fey

When you watch a film like “Sister Act” you have to wonder how it’s possible Whoopi Goldberg has more different awards (Oscar, Tony, daytime Emmy) than most actors. Quite simply, Goldberg always seems to find warm and genial moments. Although her transformation from the frantic, angry and loud Deloris to that of the inspiring nun Sister Mary Clarence is far from gradual, the metamorphosis is profound and along withs some fun music, keeps “Sister Act” from being a tremendous waste.

Deloris is a doo-wop singer playing the mistress to a mob boss (Harvey Keitel) when she witnesses a murder and her man tries to whack her. After going to the police, she’s shipped from Reno to San Francisco as part of witness protection. The police lieutenant decides a convent would be the safest place for her to hide, so she becomes a “nun” at St. Catherine’s where her heretical ways begin to rub off on the other nuns much to the dismay of mother superior (Maggie Smith).

Now, as Sister Mary Clarence, she helps (and with surprising speed) turn around the choir and turn them into gospel singers. Unfortunately, this premise is not nurtured nearly as carefully as it ought to be by screenwriter Joseph Howard, which might explain why his only two film credits are this film and its sequel. The atonal choir magically sings with a few quick tips, she becomes choir director without much ado and none of the sisters resist the gospel/doo-wop flair, they just start singing one of the hymns that way out of nowhere. The music is catch and fun and clever, but the potential is wasted. “Sister Act” is a well-known movie, but think of what it could’ve been with so more care.

The mob element is a joke. If only it stayed out of the story for a longer period of time and let the plot focus on the church just a bit longer and Sister Mary Clarence’s radical new changes. Making “Sister Act” a movie musical instead of having three choir performances total in the run time would’ve made a world of difference. Those few songs alone are enough to convince you you’re enjoying yourself. Without them, “Sister Act” would become a scatter- brained cross-up between religion and the mob and could rank among the most ridiculous films ever made.

In reflection, it’s amazing how crucial the Whoopi element is to this movie. She becomes one of the more likable mother hen figures after she finally drops the mean and sassy comedian act. There are a handful of decent nun jokes, but the human factor that Whoopi adds in the second half keeps the film alive. The way Sisters Mary Patrick and Mary Robert gravitate toward her is one of the few organic components of the movie.

Despite barely giving itself time to cook, “Sister Act” stays memorable through the music and through Whoopi.

—

3/5 Stars

—

Sister Act (1992)
Directed by Emile Ardolino
Written by Joseph Howard
Starring: Whoopi Goldberg, Maggie Smith, Kathy Najimy, Harvey Keitel

As strange as the title “Hot Tub Time Machine” might seem, it oddly fits this movie. You can only expect so much from a flick that has two nouns in the title that are as seemingly opposite as “hot tub” and “time machine.” It’s the kind of title that says “I’m not going to make sense, but who doesn’t love hot tubs or time machines?” It’s a silly, mindless film that revels in time travel jokes and an assortment of gags related to the discrepancy between being middle-aged now and being a 20-something in the ’80s. It’s the kind of pure sugar fun you need to be in the mood for.

Sadly, I hold my time travel movies to a higher standard. In fact, Crispin Glover’s appearance in this film as one of the more amusing peripheral characters who is part of an effective through-line gag was like having a constant reminder of better time travel movies even if it intended just to be a throw back for ’80s nostalgists who love “Back to the Future.” The plot moves along so haphazardly that it becomes abundantly clear “Hot Tub” wants nothing more than to exploit the idea of time travel. As far as what going back in time is supposed to teach the characters, there’s nothing new here.

The film starts with snapshots of four men, three middle aged and the fourth is one of their nephews. Nick (Craig Robinson) is on his wife’s leash, Adam’s (John Cusack) girlfriend just left him, Jacob (Clark Duke) is Adam’s 20-year-old nephew who confines himself to the basement and Lou (Rob Corddry) is a jerk who just tried to off himself, which brings his buddies Adam and Nick to his aid. Together, they decide they need a getaway to their favorite old ski resort, Kodiak Valley.

Other than generic personality portraits (Adam’s the good guy, Nick’s the big baby, Lou’s the vehicle for dirty comedy, Jacob for dead-pan comedy), we see nothing else from these guys before they randomly find themselves in 1986. Immediately they decide they have to do exactly what they did when they were at the resort 24 years ago unless they want to drastically change their future.

The rest of the film consists of insult exchanges, physical gags, time jokes, pop culture references and a few surprise nuggets we have to wait for, such as who Clark’s father is. Most of it isn’t funny, but the fact that the whole film is somewhat of a back-handed tribute to the ’80s keeps things amusing. You can’t laugh with this film, but cleverly the writers convince you that the joke is on the ’80s, so you laugh at that rather than the jumbled nonsense that is the plot. Rather than try and make sense with regards to explaining the time travel, there’s Chevy Chase as the enigmatic hot tub repair guy that randomly appears and disappears throughout. He’s supposed to be a joke confirming that writers Josh Heald, John Morris and Sean Anders are aware of their ridiculous script, but it’s not funny enough to make up the difference.

Some of the dialogue is pretty funny. It best suits Duke, who despite being the black sheep of the film, gets a lot of the laughs because his character exposes the lunacy of the others with dead-on dry delivery. Corddry works perfectly despite not being likable, Robinson does’t stretch himself compared to previous roles and Cusack — let’s all admit he was in the film because he was an ’80s icon. Some of the scenes in “Hot Tub” are like straight from “Better Off Dead.”

Like the ’80s, “Hot Tub” was a good time, but in the grand scheme of things, just not very good and not worth doing again.

—

2/5 Stars

—

Hot Tub Time Machine
Directed by Steve Pink
Written by Josh Heald, Sean Anders, John Morris
Starring: John Cusack, Craig Robinson, Rob Corddry, Clark Duke