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.

The Illusionist

IMDB

When I first saw the preview for this film, it intrigued me and I have wanted to see it ever since. The talent on display was part of what sold me. Edward Norton is great (Fight Club is my favorite of his films), Paul Giamatti is a great character on the screen (Sideways is my favorite work of his so far), and Jessica Biel is engrossing to watch (I never actually saw 7th Heaven, but she was awesome in Blade: Trinity). I did not immediately recognize Rufus Sewell when I saw the preview or the film. Some of you may remember him from Dark City (a true classic).

The other thing that sold me was the obvious effort to create a period piece. The turn-of-the-last-century reconstruction of Vienna feels great, and there was an obvious attempt to create a sullen mood with the constant overcast feeling in the movie. The preview gave me an idea of the magic that they have in the film (ooohh magic) but it did not look cheesy at all.

The actual movie did not disappoint. The basic idea of the story is that a man from humble origins who grows up to be an illusionist (Norton) is in love with a lady of the upper class above his reach (Biel), who is promised to the Crown Prince (Sewell). The obvious romantic tensions that arise from this little love triangle culminate in several kufuffles (which I will not describe, because it is a mystery film after all and I don’t want to spoil anything). A police inspector (Giamatti) attempts to investigate and unravel the complexities of what is happening, with obvious mystery created because of the suspicions of the illusionist doing his antics off the stage.

The reconstruction of Vienna is very well done. I especially loved the shots of people walking through a hallway in the Prince’s abode which had a large collection of trophy heads littering the walls, with the antlers of the heads almost making a canopy above the head of those walking through it. It was a very interesting touch to have, and something that I had never seen before. I think that it helped to add to the ambience of the film, as well as maybe telling you something about who inhabited the house.

This film is pitched as a mystery and a romance, and I think that it is much more the former than the latter (which is what I hoped for). Right from the beginning there are magic tricks on the screen that have you wondering if the movie is portraying real magic, a trickster, or even an unreliable narrator. There are some scraps of explanation for some simple tricks shown occasionally, but for the most part the mystery of Norton’s character is felt by those watching the movie in the same way as those in it. I think that this is what makes the movie so compelling to watch, and makes it feel like far less than the claimed 110 minutes.

Any discussion of how things end will spoil it for somebody, and I think that you should be able to tell somebody what you thought of a film without spoiling it. I can tell you that the ending is reached in a very entertaining way, with several turns that keep you wondering what is going on. I have heard some people complain that you can see some of it coming (and I did see some of it coming) but this is a case of the destination not being as important as the journey, and the journey is enjoyable. I think that the viewer is meant to guess at what is going to happen but wonder how the characters will do it, and that is not always a bad thing. Are Bond movies not fun because Bond always gets away and never gets killed?