Rapid Response: The Odd Couple (1968)

There’s always an issue today with watching movies from the ‘60s and ‘70s that later turned into TV shows. People like my Mom and others have greater memories and penchants for the spin-offs than they do the actual source material, and this is true of “MASH,” “Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore” and now I learn “The Odd Couple.”

The whole pitch for the TV show “The Odd Couple” was that it was a pairing of two men, one a slob and the other a neat freak. HOW WILL THEY EVER GET ALONG?!? (sitcom hilarity ensues) I’m sure there were some homosexual undertones in there as well.

But the film, which is strikingly faithful to the Neil Simon play of the same name, is really about more than opposites attracting. Simon calls up the problems that can arise in marriage through people who know each other too well and grow to hate each other’s quirks. The simple difference here is that the woman’s role is switched.

And Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau know each other all too well. The slovenly nature of Oscar’s (Matthau) apartment is exactly what makes their weekly poker games fun and Felix’s (Lemmon) oddities are exactly what make him a likeable lug (even if he does wear his seatbelt at a drive-in movie).

This “optimistic sarcasm” between friends feels very natural, and the screenplay, also by Simon, is wonderfully written. Oscar and Felix thrive as friends purely because of Simon’s witty and self-deprecating back and forth.

Points can also be awarded to the film over the show for simply having two comic actors with wonderful chemistry, Lemmon and Matthau. They were a common screen-pairing going well into the ‘90s, and together they made some good and not very good movies.

Lemmon especially is terrific. He’s always been a wonderfully versatile actor, and his dramatic chops give the film an added dimension of darkness in the opening montage in which he tries to kill himself. The film’s first shot shows Lemmon wide, and yet we can easily tell how glum he looks. And then with one line to the hotel clerk, “Do you have anything higher,” we know precisely his intentions. He’s a master, and he follows through his neuroticism with a sheer pluck and confidence in his physical comedy.

“The Odd Couple” just expired on Netflix Instant, which is a shame, but I guess it’s possible some people would prefer to watch the TV show anyways.

Rapid Response: Adam’s Rib

I can’t think of too many courtroom comedies, so “Adam’s Rib” must be pretty special. It features one of the many pairings of Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn, both of whom are excellent here and have wonderful chemistry with one another.

And such a thing is absolutely necessary for this film to be worth much of anything today. It’s a comedy, but not a screwball or even a rom-com, and it has more amusing moments and character developments rather than big punch lines or sharp, quick dialogue. It is however the little details in George Cukor’s film that turn what could otherwise be a crime procedural into something cute, romantic and funny.

Tracy and Hepburn play two lawyers, Adam and Amanda Barron, both of whom have taken the same case, an attempted murder trial of a woman who shot her cheating husband as he was in the act.

Amanda takes up the cause on her principals of women’s rights and equality, which kind of makes the film dated today with its soapbox pandering and touting of successful women, one of whom can lift Spencer Tracy over her head and do flips.

Thankfully though, Tracy’s character is hardly prejudiced and doesn’t make the issue into more than it is. He also is on wonderful terms with his wife, which is exactly the opposite of how a contemporary rom-com would do this, with characters constantly at each others’ throats to get a laugh and having to redeem their love later.

“Adam’s Rib” also has a wonderful twist in its finale with Tracy proving just how wonderfully likeable of a trickster he can be as an actor. It’s one of those moments that could be a trainwreck if handled any other way than it is, and again something that a modern comedy would jump for in terms of shock value, but here is played safe to hilarious effect.

I’m just starting a kick of comedies after watching “The Odd Couple” a few days ago, which I haven’t written about yet. “The Odd Couple” landed at #17 on the AFI Top 100 Laughs list, and “Adam’s Rib” landed at #22. With that, I’ve now seen 1-23, amongst others, and the next highest I’ve missed is #24, “Born Yesterday.” Ironically enough, it’s also directed by George Cukor, so that should be fun I guess.

Wanderlust

“Wanderlust” is a silly mess of a comedy in the way it tries to mock a hippie lifestyle while still grooving off their good vibrations.

David Wain’s film follows New York married couple George and Linda (Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston) to the Elysium commune in Georgia after they lose their jobs and apartment, a place where every hippie cliché ever imagined is piled on to a disturbing degree.

George and Linda are the only two characters not on an extreme end of the spectrum, be it the free loving, voodoo chanting, nature embracing and technologically challenged Seth (Justin Theroux) or George’s aggressive, douchebag brother Rick (Ken Marino).

Rudd is amusing in small-scale moments when the script allows one of the normals to be funny, namely because he will say yes to any bit, no matter how ridiculous.

But the movie’s screwball nature to top itself can be overwhelming and just plain gross. Not even an actor as likeable as Rudd can make carrying a newborn’s placenta around funny.

2 stars

Rapid Response: Frenzy

Film critic David Thomson called “The Birds” Alfred Hitchcock’s “last unflawed film.” And because of that infamous criticism, most Hitchcock fans will look no further than it in his career.

In fact, neither did the general public around the time Hitchcock’s 1972 “Frenzy” was released. The director had experimented with political thrillers that alienated audiences and only just unified critics, and “Frenzy” was his return to form in the murder genre.

But Hitchcock was an Old Hollywood staple; a master of his time who struggled to find his footing in a new generation of filmmakers. “Frenzy” was lewd enough to warrant an R-rating, but if the movie was ultimately a lot like something he could’ve made in the ’40s, would you waste your time with it if you had just seen something like, say, “A Clockwork Orange” or “The Godfather?”

The difference is however, “Frenzy” holds up remarkably well. It’s still the filmmaker displaying technical perfection that is unrivaled in any age. It’s gripping, complex, darkly funny and deliciously twisted on a level that matches, if not surpasses, some of his more famous films. Continue reading “Rapid Response: Frenzy”

Project X and Modern Exploitation Films

The marketing for “Project X” suggests a new wave of exploitation films.

If I wanted a movie with a flimsy plot, crazy stunts, low production values and a lot of hot women in a softcore porn setting, wouldn’t I usually go to a shady, straight-to-DVD bargain bin?

Then why is a movie like “Project X” screening at multiplexes everywhere this Friday as though it were the next “Hangover?”

Watching “Project X,” a horrible, offensive and sexist film, I realized a lot of the adjectives I used to describe how much I hated it also applied to cheesy fun exploitation films from the ‘70s.

But I was convinced the exploitation genre was dead. I interviewed film scholars studying the genre who explained that most exploitation films today have either migrated to video and DVD starting as early as the ‘80s home video boom or are now self-referential parodies of older films, like the ones Quentin Tarantino or Robert Rodriguez crank out.

And that audience who craved a unique form of action and other pleasures has transferred over into cult fans for graphic novel based movies. One such example is “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World,” which ironically or not shares co-writer Michael Bacall as a screenwriter for “Project X.”

My question is, did the exploitation genre morph or evolve into found footage films without anyone noticing? Continue reading “Project X and Modern Exploitation Films”

Project X

“Project X is a dumb, abusive and sexist film that celebrates anarchy and drug abuse without redemption. It’s a douchebag’s fantasy.

“Project X is a dumb, abusive and sexist film that celebrates anarchy and drug abuse without redemption. It’s a douchebag’s fantasy.

Why should a movie about an epic party be such a drag? I sat like the designated driver incapable of having fun as bros and sorority girls in my sold out, advanced screening gawked and hawed at fellow beautiful people performing acts that were not just offensive or drunkenly stupid but were genuinely psychotic. Continue reading “Project X”

2012 Oscars Recap

Image courtesy of guardian.co.uk and Getty Images

We love the movies. That’s why we watch the Oscars.

Did I mention that we love the movies? And did I mention that Billy Crystal loves the movies? Oh yeah, we love the movies, the old classic ones that aren’t all really classics, but some new ones too that definitely aren’t classics but people might actually recognize.

But rather than show you how much we love the movies with actual funny jokes or parodies, we’ll just tell you how much we love the movies and play it real safe all night. That way you’ll watch next year so long as you didn’t completely hate us, right? And how could you hate us when we all love the movies so much?

Sunday night’s Oscars were eye-rollingly mediocre, and part of the reason for that was an adamant position on not doing anything that might be too risky, too offensive or even too gaudily awful of a joke or skit that might alienate people from changing the channel. Continue reading “2012 Oscars Recap”

The Importance of Being Oscar

What will we say about 2011 as a year for movies when the potential Best Picture winner quite literally doesn’t say anything at all?

“The Artist” was once the controversial contender for Best Picture. Not since the first Oscars in 1927 had a silent film won, and it was doubtful this French crowd-pleaser would be the one to change that.

The narrative even fit the tumultuous Academy landscape with the lop-sided number of nominees and changing rules in other major categories.

Now however, ‘The Artist” seems like the safe bet, and in just a few weeks since the nominations, the race has lost its energy as obvious frontrunners make their way ever closer to the podium.

The Oscars remain the last important awards ceremony, but the movies nominated need to reflect their significance.

Consider for a moment that of all the films nominated for Best Picture, not one is a dark, feel-bad movie like “Drive,” “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” or “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.”

There is also only one film, “The Help,” which grossed over $100 million at the box office.

And of those, only “The Descendants” or “Moneyball” can be called 21st Century films.

There is still something to be said about a silent film winning Best Picture, namely that a movie, in this case a foreign film that would typically be Best Picture poison, can be universal.

But the problem is that “The Artist” will not inspire a wave of silent films from young, aspiring filmmakers. It may temporarily generate some fascination in the silent era, but the nostalgia of Michel Hazanivicius’s film, as well as the many other backwards-looking films in 2011, is fleeting.

If something like “The Tree of Life” could win, heads would really turn. Films like “No Country for Old Men,” “The Hurt Locker” and “The Lord of the Rings” are all masterpieces in their own ways, but Terrence Malick’s film carries with it the aura that still belongs to “2001: A Space Odyssey.” Rarely is such an important film this close to being recognized as such by a populist voting body.

Short of ensuring that the best films always win, I’m struggling to think what the Oscars still need to do to remain relevant.

Many have criticized that the Oscars can seem like an old man’s club, and this year is no exception. The average age of the nominees in the Best Supporting Actor category is 62.6, and even the Best Director field is stacked with aging masters.

The Oscars could very easily slate younger if only they nominated Shailene Woodley, “Bridesmaids” or included performances by “The Muppets,” but part of what makes the Oscars special is that they are distinguished and made to be taken seriously. If the Oscars are anything, they are not the Grammys or the MTV Movie Awards.

There’s the thought to go back to five nominees, but even if nominating “Inception” and “Toy Story 3” meant little in terms of ratings, a changing, broader field of films has kept movies like “The Tree of Life,” “Bridesmaids,” “Tinker Tailor,” “Drive,” “Dragon Tattoo” and even “Harry Potter” or “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” in the conversation for long enough for them to actually be recognized.

Even if the nomination for “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” was infuriating, it at the very least created some buzz and actually got people out to see the damn thing.

Fixing the Oscars may not come easy, but it’s clear that something must be done to address the Oscars’ problems. They’re too important to just ignore.

The Gold Rush (1925)

It might not be the most flattering of praises to say that Charlie Chaplin’s “The Gold Rush” was the first movie to make cannibalism funny, but that’s the irreverent charm of one of the Tramp’s finest films.

Watching it can immediately reveal two things. Firstly we take notice of just how committed Chaplin is to every one of his gags. He doesn’t exactly play everything with a straight face the way Buster Keaton would, but when he aims to eat his own shoe as though his laces were spaghetti and the sole was a bony fish, he makes a point to get a laugh out of it. Not to mention he will continue walking without a proper shoe even in the most pathos filled moments.

Even his face in the film’s famed “Oceana Dance,” with two bread rolls stuck to forks acting as legs, is made so endearing thanks to his immersion and dopey charm within his miniature character. Further, Chaplin’s cinematographer isolates him in a darkly back-lit scene to allow the routine to stand on its own as a clever vaudevillian number. It’s as if he made a point to make that moment famous. Continue reading “The Gold Rush (1925)”

Oscars 2012: Will Win (Part 2)

See my picks for the remaining categories along with analysis, here.

Movies are an art, not a science. And yet The Academy, save for a few eye rolling hiccups each year, operates like clockwork. Predicting the winners at the Oscars is as simple as playing the horses at the track, so here’s your betting form for the big race on Sunday night.

Best Picture

The Artist: 80%

I was once in the camp that a silent film, no matter how good, could never win Best Picture in 2012. But now my odds hardly reflect how one-sided this race has become. Even though it’s a French film, “The Artist” is universal. It’s a crowd-pleaser, a star-maker, and the only Best Picture nominee filmed in Los Angeles. From the Golden Globe to the Director’s Guild to the surprising BAFTA win, the question is not if “The Artist” will win but how many Oscars it will win.

Hugo: 8%

Actually trumping “The Artist” in nominations and taking its cinematic nostalgia trip one step further, “Hugo” and a sweep of technical awards may propel this film to a Best Picture win.

The Descendants: 7%

Be it “The Social Network” or “Up in the Air,” critics and Academy voters respond to the 21st Century darling of the year, and Alexander Payne’s “The Descendants” is that film.

Midnight in Paris: 1.5%

The Help: 1%

The Tree of Life: 1%

Moneyball: .75%

War Horse: .5%

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close: .25%

To address the remaining nominees, I don’t want to say they don’t stand a chance, but who am I kidding? If you had five nominees this year, your contenders outside of the top three would be “Midnight in Paris” and “The Help,” maybe “Moneyball.” So that says something for their chances. The other completely outside chance would be “The Tree of Life,” an important film that a number of critics have made a case for to win the Oscar based on how significant such a victory would seem in terms of cinema history. I don’t want to make any sort of case for “Extremely Loud,” but being here was its first big surprise, and winning could be its second. Continue reading “Oscars 2012: Will Win (Part 2)”