Ten Statements About....DATE NIGHT (2010)

Okay, so their knowledge of the New York Subway system
is hinky....

"They stabbed a chicken nugget with a sharpie.  These are bad people."

1) This film would not work without the sheer primal chemistry between Steve Carell and Tina Fey.  The two of them have such a chemistry that you thoroughly believe that they are a long-standing married couple with two kids wondering if they're in a rut.  The way these two interact keep this movie moving forward even when it stalls and sputters.

2) ...and it's to the credit of John Klausner's script that it lets its leads behave awkwardly and out of touch, but never does it allow them to behave stupidly.  Just something as simple as going to the cops after their first encounter with the bad guys makes perfect sense.  It's these little niggling things so many other movies would ascribe to 'just go with it' that Klausner takes care to resolve, allowing us to move forward much more quickly and not get bogged down with the implausibilities.

3) I'll admit it....the geography of this film is real hinky, given how our heroes move from Soho to Central Park to Alphabet City to the Hudson River (they say it's the East River, but it's obvious the way that sequence was filmed that it's the west side of the city) and beyond in one night at breakneck speed.  And yet, unlike other films that mangle New York geography, the script is so effective, and the narrative flow is so fast-paced and smooth, that I didn't notice these discrepencies until after the movie was over.

4) Having seen other 'action comedies' recently that are clumsily constructed, I have to admire how the 'action' and the 'comedy' parts of this film are so well-integrated.  There is none of the herky-jerky stop and start flow that so many modern action comedies have, and each set piece moves into the next smoothly and without any sudden changes in tone.

"Yeah, Mila...I just figured what the Hell, I'll be a crackhead
petty criminal in this movie...looks like fun."

5) It does seem like cameos/small roles are de riguer for comedies these days, and the ones that appear here are much better than the average, from Ray Liotta’s gangster to Mark Wahlberg’s security expert, they’re well cast and well handled.  That being said...

6) I get the impression that as long as it interests or entertains him, James Franco will appear in anything.  His turn opposite Mila Kunis as the couple (named Taste and Whippet) Carell and Fey’s Fosters are mistaken for is a true highlight of the film--and also provides a mirror to their own status as being in a long standing relationship--but all the time the scene was unspooling, all I could think of was ‘what is James Franco doing here?’

7) No wonder Tajari P. Henson left Person of Interest, as her Detective Arroyo is practically to all extent and purposes the detective she played in this series, only a lot less serious...which means she was playing the same character for four years.

Sumptin' for da laaaadies....

8) There are some songs that simply should be banned from ever appearing on movies again.  Look, I love Jackie Wilson as much as the next person, but when they used ‘Higher And Higher’ as the outro it just screwed up what is supposed to be an up moment.

9) With the exception of a running gag involving vomit, I’m pleased that this film is relatively clean of that grossess-for-the-sake-of grossness that infuses so much of modern comedy.

10) It’s funny; as much noise as this film seems to make about Fey showing up in this stripper saloon girl outfit, there’s nothing that really tops how she looks in that simple blue dress.  The elegance of it just emphasizes what needs to be emphasizes.

Overall...a very clever action comedy bouyed by the chemistry of the leads, a clever script and some great casting.

Ten Statements About....PEEP WORLD (2010)

...because there are days I dream of having Dexter and Dwight
standing over me....usually the days I wake up screaming...

"I mean, you're an incredible writer...with a dysfunctional penis."

1) Can we please, please, please ascribe the 'starting an Indie Comedy with a sliver of the climax, then rewinding to earlier that day' thing to the pile of Cinema Tropes We Never Need To See Again? It's gotten so that every time I see a film open like that, my blood runs cold.

2) You know what's the difference between the Modern Indie Comedy and the Modern Mainstream Comedy? In the Modern Mainstream Comedy, where they make a character's painful, medically induced and constant erection a plot thread....they actually show you the penis.

3) The crux of this film's problem is simply that the central characters--the children of a developer played by Ron Rifkin--are true grotesque that director Barry Blaustein is perfectly content to just parade out without giving us any sort of reason for us to want to follow their collision course with a moment of clarity that reunites them as a family. Hell, when Rifkin blows up at the quartet, you're actually on his side.

4) That being said, there are a couple of sympathetic characters we can identify with. Unfortunately, they're uniformly supporting characters with minimal roles. In particular, I liked Taraji P. Henson's Mary, who makes you believe that she does see something in Rainn Wilson's schlubby Joel we just can't, and Kate Mara's Meg, who seems to have more levels to her publicity assistant than the script gives her.

You will believe an attractive black woman
could fall in love with Dwight....

(Okay, and I can sympathize with Stephen Tobolowsky's Ephriam, even if his whole point is so that Blaustein can laugh at the Jews For Jesus movement, only because I can see putting up with Sarah Silverman's insanity and emotional brutality for eight years in the hopes that she would sleep with me as well...)

5) You know what I find particularly monstrous about Ben Schwartz's Nathan? It's the sense that this whole ridiculous thing about abusing his assistants then confessing his sexual dysfuction to them is an act he does at every stop on his book tour to get them to sleep with him. It's hard to sympathize with him later when he reveals why he wrote the book he did when you suspect he's such a manipulative lil' putz.

6) I am going to give Rainn Wilson a tiny bit of credit here. Yes, Joel is another schmuck like the ones he played before. But unlike that grotesque he plays in The Office, and the mentally broken down Frank from Super, Joel has some strengths as well as weaknesses. He has a genuine desire to better himself and when he's with Mary, he seems to strive to be better and is more aware of the problems he suffers from. It's a much more interesting performance than he is usually capable of giving.

7) Maybe it's because I'm a man, but I just don't get why Judy Greer's Laura considers Michael C. Hall's Jack looking at porn worse than physically cheating on her. Yeah, she has a right to be mad, but to the extent she does in this film makes her seem out of control even for a pregnant woman. But then....

8) Jack himself is almost as big a mess as Joel is, a seeming giant of passivity. He doesn't resist anyone, doesn't say no until Rifkin chews him out...and when he proclaims he doesn't want to be an architect anymore without any plan as to what he wants to do instead, it comes off not as inspiring, but insipid. I just have this sense he'll be either on the street with his wife and newborn kid or working for his father's company within a year....

Yes.  I am showig you a picture of Sarah Silverman reading
a book...shut up, she's hot!

9) I am now at the point where I look at any indie comedy with a narrator with askance....especially when you use said narrator without taking advantage of the qualities that make that narrator unique. Lewis Black is such a passionate speaker that I suspect the film would be enhanced if Blaustein's script allowed him to get a little judgemental or sarcastic in the reading. But no, Black is made to narrate in a dry, neutral style that I wondered how bored he was reading these rote little passages.

10) You know what I hate about Indie 'comedies' like this? There's no difference between them and mainstream comedies...except that the characters are more well off and we're expected to take away insights into the human conditions in the end. Replace these people with a bunch of high schoolers being chewed out by the principal and there's very. little. difference.

Overall...Even though there are some small performances that are entertaining, this is a smug little comedy populated by emotional monsters we're supposed to find endearing.