Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

IMDB

Me going to see this film was pretty much a given. Sacha Baron Cohen has been pumping out great comedy for many years – I first saw his work in 2001 when I was visiting some friends in the old country, and they showed me some cool videos of this Ali G guy. The interview with the Beckhams was priceless. It was a surprise to me that HBO picked him up to do a series in the US – normally British comedy does not survive the trip over the Atlantic intact – but the HBO series was very well done.

The plot is seemingly simple – Borat is hired to go to the USA, and make learnings while doing interviews that will help Kazakhstan become a better country. First he does a tour of his village and home (something that you will be familiar with if you have watched a lot of Borat’s work. Unsurprisingly, it does not follow canon – his wife is different and he has only one. Yes I am a nerd for pointing that out). This is a chance to show how backward everybody in his village is. Then he travels to New York (complete with Cyrillic map) to start his journey. What follows is pretty much like the Borat segments from his show, strung together with a storyline that takes him from place to place. Along the way he decides that Pamela Anderson must be his, and he redefines the journey in an attempt to track her down and marry her.

What follows is a film with barely a dull moment, and it is very funny almost all of the time. I think that some more serious reviews might want to focus on the fact that a lot of the plot seems to be very much like a series of disconnected interviews with some funny filler added in like script spackle. I don’t know how true that this actually is (although I suspect that at least one of the interviews could have been taped for the HBO show, put on the shelf unused, and then pulled out for the film), but I don’t really think that it matters because it came out great. This is not a class project for school, this is meant to entertain me, and it does so very bloody well.

The main supporting character for the film is Borat’s producer, Azamat Bagatov, played extremely well by Ken Davitian. He fits the stereotype that we are expecting extremely well. I do think that the fight between Borat and Azamat in the hotel, sans clothing, went for a fraction longer than it should. It was a great modern twist on the Benny Hill style, but it could do with a smidgen of editing.

The funniest thing about all of Cohen’s characters is actually the reaction of the people that he is talking to. He has an ability to make people really show themselves on the camera in a very deep way, sometimes revealing things to large audiences that the people would regret. There are definitely some moments like this in the film, where he will say very bigoted things and have people agree with him. There is a very serious and non comedic undercurrent to Borat, and this is what it is – showing how even in the United States, primitive attitudes like his are actually alive and well. I don’t think that this is specifically a comment on the US – he made the same observations in his native England, and he could go to any industrialized country and pull the same stunt with success. I think that some people see his anti-semitic comments made as the Borat character as a sign that the film is anti-semitic. This tragic – it is obvious to me that Cohen is using his character to show that anti-jewish sentiment is still out there and very strong amongst some people. Like any problem, racism needs to be acknowledged to be solved and I think that Cohen is trying to do some small part here.

Overall, I highly recommend the film. I cannot with good conscience recommend it for children, though. I saw some kids at the cinema where I saw the film that could not have been older than 12, and the movie earned its ‘R’ rating quite comfortably. I even saw some people leave partway through with their children, seemingly unaware of how crass the film would be (luckily they left before the extended naked wrestling scene between Borat and Azamat). I am not trying to tell anybody how to parent their kids – I just want to help people make informed decisions.

School for Scoundrels

IMDB

I knew that eventually I would have to see this film. Anybody who reads my reviews (all 3 of you) will know that the cast of the film are often a deciding factor for me to decide to watch it. And when Jon Heder makes a new film, it gets a free pass because Napoleon Dynamite was so bloody good. The only concern from watching previews is that Jon will just reprise the Napoleon character, and not branch out and do something different. I think that the guy has awesome talent, but the Hollywood money machine will find it hard to resist making “Napoleon Dynamite in the city” or “Napoleon Dynamite meets [insert cliche here]“. I am sure that it will get him a paycheck and tickets to parties with The Rock, but eventually he will lose his draw.

The good news is that Jon does not simply act like Napoleon in this film. Sure he starts the story as a bit of a doofus – but his character changes and develops during the course of the movie to become something else. Towards the end he even starts to get a bit of a glint in his eye, making him more of a human being and less of a caricature of one. The movie also does not have a surreal feel to it like Napoleon Dynamite did – it is filmed on the streets of New York and does not make a story of the surroundings. I wish that more films were shot outside of Manhattan, though. I like the big apple, but too much is filmed there in my opinion. There are oodles of cities in the US that can be used for a film like this one. I don’t care if it is filmed in Vancouver, as long as it is obviously set somewhere interesting.

So we have established that the film is not a cheap Napoleon Dynamite clone. However, as well as being a remake of a similarly named 1960 screenplay, it also has very similar tones to Anger Management. Consider the presence of an older more established actor (Billy Bob Thornton vs Jack Nicholson), a nervous too polite protagonist, a sweet love interest for that protagonist, a classroom environment for learning, and a competition between the old and the young. Not only that, but Billy Bob is also staring in a film called Mr Woodcock where he plays a gym teacher fighting constantly with his future stepson (played by Seann William Scott). Maybe I am seeing too many patterns where they don’t really exist (and I have been known to stick papers with numbers on the wall) but the meme of the old generation and the new competing in some fashion and learning something about themselves seems to be very common.

A lack of originality does not neccessarily negate entertainment, however. Many action films could be considered to have a similar arc, and they are mostly fun to watch (especially when a lot of shit gets blowed up). And School for Scoundrels is pretty funny most of the time. It does however suffer from a slightly too high squirm factor, though. This is the term I have for movies where I cannot watch what is happening, because I feel so embarrassed for the character on the screen. If you squirmed through Meet the Parents then you know exactly what I am talking about – this movie defined the genre for me. Ironically enough, Ben Stiller does have a small part in School for Scoundrels too. Maybe his influence on the set adds some squirm to everything?

Most squirm movies are normally very funny for it though, and this is no exception. Jon is a great character actor, and Billy Bob plays the old bastard extremely well. Jacinda Barrett plays the Australian girl next door love interest very well (I recognize her from Ladder 49, where she did a good job as well). Sarah Silverman plays the bitchy flatmate a bit too well, and Michael Clark Duncan does his bit with some unexpected flair at times. I am glad to see him branch more into comedy lately, because he does it well and it is not just the easy thing of playing a soldier or football player in every movie.

The ending actually worked out different to what I thought it would, which lent the movie an unpredictable feel, which is a good thing. If you want a nice popcorn flick with a bit of a laugh I recommend this film. I think that you will find it better than you expected.

Keeping Mum

IMDB

One of the local theatres was showing this, and I decided to watch it based purely on the fact that Rowan Atkinson was in it. This may seem a bit brash, but with shows like Blackadder and Mr Bean, I will always take a chance with Mr Atkinson. As it turns out, the rest of the cast was very good as well. Kristin Scott Thomas plays the wife of the local vicar (supurbly played by Rowan Atkinson) – she looked very familiar, and her resume shows her in many films where I might have seen her (including Mission Impossible, which is very different to this film). Maggie Smith plays the lady who starts up as the housekeeper for the vicar’s family (and unless you live under a broken bus somewhere, you will find her very familiar. Harry Potter anybody?).

The storyline is hard to describe without turning the review into a big fat spoiler. Basically, the vicar (who is apparently the most boring man in the most boring village in the world) and his depressed wife hire a housekeeper, who changes their life for the better in many wonderful ways. Along the way a lot of curious incidents happen, leading to many humerous incidents and a humerous ending.

If you love watching British television (such as Four Weddings and a Funeral, for example, or anything else with Hugh Grant) then you will love Keeping Mum. It is a bit of a black comedy (there are several murders in the film) and the characters live in a somewhat dystopian representation of what most people think of old blighty. The seventeen year old daughter is sleeping with as many men as she can get her hands on, the younger son is being given a hard time by bullies, nobody can sleep because of a barking terrier across the road, and the Vicar is aweful at being a goalie.

Much like Whale Rider (my review here), the film was shot in a location to lend authenticity to things. As is typical in this part of the world, there is never sunshine (I have never been there, but you rarely see sunshine in anything shot in that part of the world. If everything was sunny I would be suspicious). The old lady across the road is nosy, the old man next to her cannot hear, and it all brings a picture of the old days to mind. I sets the stage beautifully for a great comedy, because along with this old Harry-Potter-esque landscape you have people swearing in a positively modern way, Lexus SUVs and cellphones as well. The juxtaposition of old and new in Europe is always interesting to watch for me, but then again I have always lived in the New World.

Overall, it is a great film. It is well staged, well filmed, well written and very funny to boot. Rowan Atkinson plays a role which looks a lot less formularic than some others I have seen – there is always the temptation to make him Blackadder or Bean in films, and when they try to do that it does not come out very well at all. You don’t get the sense that the role was written for him, basically, which ironically enough makes it more fun to watch. Maggie Smith is a great surprise too – she plays her role very well, and it is an interesting role to play. She is obviously very accomplished as an actress and shows that in this film.

The only problem with this film, I fear, is finding a cinema to watch it in. It seems to have the feel of something that major theatres will only carry if they see an award for it or something. Which would be a grand pity – this deserves to run with the big boys. Try to look out for this if a local theatre carries it.

Crank

IMDB

Looking around the offerings this weekend, I noticed Crank in the listings. Seeing something with an ‘R’ rating makes me curious (I think that on average you see more artistic integrity with a film rated ‘R’. You at least know that things are not edited down to satisfy some demographic). And what do I see but Jason Statham in the credits?

Ever since Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels I have kept my eye out for Mr Statham. He never fails to impress me. That is not to say that every film that I have seen him in has been fantastic, but I squarely lay the blame for these incidents on the script and never at his feet. His best offering to date is probably The Transporter, which was the first film I saw that was a vehicle for his unique talents. His girlfriend is very well played by Amy Smart, who is most recognizable to me from Starsky and Hutch, but who has starred in a bunch of other things in places that I never noticed (such as Starship Troopers). Another honorable mention is Efren Ramirez, who looked familiar in the film to me, but it was not until I checked the internets later that I saw that this was Pedro from Napoleon Dynamite.

The cast is set up for a good time, so how is the story? The premise of the story is somewhat unique. Statham’s character, a hitman, has been injected with some potion that means that he will die unless he keeps his adrenaline going (well, not that unique. Think Speed, instead with Jason instead of a bus). Finding out that he has very little time to live has made him understandably angry, so he sets out to find the man who did this to him.

There are very few dull moments in the film. I think that the people who made this wanted a roller coaster ride, and the plot is a very good excuse for one. The story suits Statham well – there is a lot of his trademark extreme, almost comedic action going on constantly in his efforts to keep himself awake. It is interesting to note that the film was directed and written by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, who count Biker Boyz in their previous credits (although not as writers or directors. This appears to be a debut of sorts for writing and directing for this pair). There are some interesting effects put into play during the film to try and give an idea of what the protagonist is going through with his medical condition, as well as for artistic effect (at one point a bar with a fight in it bulges in an almost cartoonish fashion).

The constant barrage of action and the original plot make for a great film. The story is rarely predictable, although I think that it does brush a little too lightly on the goings on of the underworld in which Statham’s character works. The lightness of this part of the story gives the impression that the backstory is just an excuse for the protagonist to break a whole bunch of stuff, but breaking a whole bunch of stuff is entertaining, so I forgive it. There were times where the whole theater was laughing out loud at the antics on screen, and people even clapped at some of it. Even very good films fail to bring this level of passion to the audience, and I think that the passion that I saw tonight in the audience was appropriate. This film was entertainment all of the way.

Along Came Polly

IMDB

To be honest, the first time I saw a preview for this film I was scared to watch it, and I avoided it in the theatrical release. This is in spite of being a huge fan of Ben Stiller, ever since I saw Zoolander. I think that I could tell that this movie would be a cringe-fest, much like Meet the Parents, which although incredibly funny was hard to watch because I would constantly cringe in empathy at the embarrassing situations being shown. It is interesting that the preview reminded me so much of the Focker films because John Hamburg wrote them along with Along Came Polly, and the movie has a similar feel.

Eventually, curiosity got the better of me and I watched it. I am glad that I did, because even though I was right about the cringeworthyness of the content, it also delivered the kind of funny stuff that Mr Stiller is famous for. The premise of the story is quite basic (Stiller plays an insurance analyst who is constantly trying to play everything safe, who is spurned by his newlywed bride on his honeymoon and starts dating a dangerous happy go lucky girl). The Polly described in the title is played by Jennifer Aniston, who plays the part well if a little too much like characters from her other movies and television efforts.

The protagonist’s best friend is brilliantly played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, who never shirks an opportunity to show off his range of acting abilities. I have seen him in such varied efforts as The Talented Mr. Ripley and Boogie Nights. Despite he and the Scobleizer looking scarily alike, I always enjoy watching him play his roles. His portrayal of Truman Capote was amazing to watch. I had no idea who Capote was, but I recently saw a preview for Infamous I immediately thought ”They’re making another Capote film!”. The fact that he plays an actor in this movie is deliciously ironic as well, because it takes a great actor to play a bad actor well (if that makes any sense). Hank Azaria also makes a cameo – it is always amazing how you have to do a double take to recognize him. He does a character so well you don’t know that it is him if he puts on a voice and a wig.

The movie is a little predictable in parts, but this movie is meant to be enjoyed like a pizza on a lazy afternoon. You know it is not gourmet but you don’t care, because it meets the needs and the desires of the time better than gourmet would. As somebody who also refuses to eat nuts out of a tray in a bar (I agree with Ben’s character that it is a good chance somebody with questionable hygiene has been there before you) it was interesting to watch how other people perceive this OCD-like behavior.

Overall, if you doubted the movie like I did then you shouldn’t have. While it is not quite the classic that Zoolander was, it is a great easy comedy flick that will give you quite a few laughs and keep you entertained along the way. There is never a dull moment with Ben Stiller around.