Movie Review: Yes Man

Yes Man (2008) 

Directed by Peyton Reed 

Written by Nicholas Stoller, Jarrad Paul, Andrew Mogel 

Starring Jim Carrey, Zooey Deschanel, Bradley Cooper, John Michael Higgins

Release Date December 19th, 2008 

Published December 18th, 2008 

In Liar Liar Jim Carrey played a lawyer who could not tell a lie. This, naturally, lead to a number of awkward situations that allowed Carrey to whip himself into a comic frenzy. Now in his latest feature Jim Carrey plays a loan officer who must say yes to everything. If you think this premise allows Carrey to once again whip himself into a wild comic frenzy, you may as well skip the rest of this review. I'm kidding, please keep reading.

Carl has been a sadsack since his wife left him 3 years ago. He rarely leaves his apartment and when he does it is just to rent videos. His best friend Peter (Bradley Cooper) is getting married and expects him to be there for him but even his best pal can't drag him out his funk.

It is not until he attends a self help seminar, at the urging of a strange former acquaintance, Nick (John Michael Higgins), that Carl finally comes out of his shell. The seminar is hosted by Terrence Bundley (Terrence Stamp) whose schtick is getting people to say yes to every opportunity.

With some further prodding from Nick, Carl says yes to giving a homeless man a ride miles out the way. The homeless guy uses up Carl's cell battery and the drive runs him out of gas. However, while filling a gas can Carl meets Allison (Zooey Deschanel). They have instant chemistry and Carl finds the yes to everything strategy could have some real perks.

From there we get a series of scenes that allow Jim Carrey to act more and more goofy and have more and more good things happen to him. That is until, the predictable scene where saying yes finally gets Carl in trouble. A valuable lesson in moderation will be learned while Carrey all the while flips and flops about in search of laughs.

To be fair, Carrey finds plenty of laughs in Yes Man. The guy is a natural comic talent who can't help but stumble into laughs and Yes Man is a movie designed specifically to play into Carrey's strengths. Each scene gives Carrey reason to launch into some kind of comic riff. Some of them are laugh out loud, some, like a Harry Potter themed costume party, lay there in search of a punchline.

The structure of Yes Man may play to Carrey's strengths but the choppy, predictable narrative is in the end terribly unsatisfying. A series of set ups and punchlines fail to serve as a character arc or really a story. There is romantic chemistry between Carrey and Zooey Deschanel but that too is undercut by the lack of a compelling narrative.

Funny in bursts but short one compelling story, Yes Man is a movie for hardcore Carrey fans and no one else.

Movie Review Gulliver's Travels

Gulliver's Travels (2010) 

Directed by Rob Letterman

Written by Joe Stillman, Nicholas Stoller

Starring Jack Black, Jason Segal, Emily Blunt, Amanda Peet, Chris O'Dowd, Catherine Tate

Release Date December 25th, 2010 

Published Deember 25th, 2010

The thing about "Gulliver's Travels" is that there isn't all that much wrong with it and I still can't recommend it. The cast headed up by Jack Black is uniformly game and hard working. The story is a classic hence why Jonathan Swift's story has lingered for more than 200 years. So, what really kept me from liking this harmless, desperately wanting to be loved movie? I'm still working on that.

Gulliver (Jack Black) is the head of the mailroom at one of New York's largest newspapers. He's been at this job for a while, something that would not satisfy most adults. When Gulliver finds out that the new guy, Dan (T.J Miller), that he has trained for a single day is now his new boss, Gulliver vows to do something with his life.

That something is finally asking out the paper's travel editor Darcy (Amanda Peet) who Gulliver has had a crush on for years. Unfortunately, Gulliver chickens out on the asking out part and in his haste to escape social mortification accidentally backs into a writing assignment. After faking a writing sample Gulliver is off to Bermuda where the infamous triangle awaits.

Of course we know that soon after Gulliver boards his boat he will be arriving in Lilliput, the island home of the miniscule Lilliputians lead by King Benjamin (Billy Connelly), his daughter, Princess Mary (Emily Blunt) and her betrothed, General Edward (I.T Crowd genius Chris O'Dowd). After being captured by the General and imprisoned, Gulliver makes a friend, Horatio (Jason Segal) who happens to be Princess Mary's true love, imprisoned by the jealous General.

From that set up we get Gulliver becoming a hero defending Lilliput against other mini invaders, Horatio released from prison and wooing Mary with Gulliver's modern diffidence and the surprise arrival of Darcy in search of Gulliver after discovering his faked writing samples lifted from Fodor's among other sources.

There is a battle against a giant robot and an island where Gulliver is dwarfed by even larger beings. These ideas are introduced by director Rob Letterman and just sort of happen and are discarded. There is no lingering effect. Some of this stuff is funny, most of it might bring about a smile or a chuckle but mostly the humor of "Gulliver's Travels" evaporates as quickly as it appeared.

The thing is though; there is nothing really wrong with that. Chuckles and half smiles aren't bad when you want a minor distraction. A movie should aspire to a great deal more but when so many other movies rob audiences of life force, I'm looking at you Fockers, one is tempted to grab a giggle wherever you can find them.

Also, it's fair to say that "Gulliver's Travels" meets every expectation of its underwhelming trailer. Jack Black tumbles and riffs, Emily Blunt and Amanda Peet are pretty and the 3D is completely meaningless and unnecessary. Jack Black gets the same laughs in the movie that he does in the trailer and a few more half smiles and giggles here and there. It's everything the marketing promises.

I am hesitant to give even a half hearted recommendation to "Gulliver's Travels" in part because of a quote from the legendary, and greatly missed, Gene Siskel who once asked "Is this movie as good as a documentary about these same actors having lunch together?" Gulliver's Travels fails that test miserably. Listening into the lunch conversation of Jack Black, Jason Segal, Chris O'Dowd, Billy Connelly and Oscar nominee Emily Blunt would be infinitely more entertaining than "Gulliver's Travels."

Movie Review: Forgetting Sarah Marshall

Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008 

Directed by Nicholas Stoller

Written by Jason Segal

Starring Jason Segal, Mila Kunis, Kristen Bell, Russell Brand, Jonah Hill, Paul Rudd, Jack McBrayer

Release Date April 18th, 2008

Published April 17th, 2008

The golden touch of writer/director/producer Judd Apatow had become King Midas in reverse on his last two efforts. the brutal spoof Walk Hard and the forgettable Drillbit Taylor. Thankfully, the golden touch is back in the new romantic comedy Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Starring Apatow's long time friend, part of the apatow repertory players from TV and the movies, Jason Segal, Forgetting Sarah Marshall returns to the Apatow gang's comfort zone of awkward, R-Rated romance and mines it for humor of great discomfort, humanity, truth and penis jokes.

Peter Bretter (Segal) has been in love with Sarah Marshall for five years since they met on the set of her hit show Crime Scene: Scene of the Crime. Peter performs all of the music on the show. All seemed warm and cozy until Sarah decided to break up with him. Devastated, Peter drifts into a series of random sexual encounters before his brother Dave (Bill Hader) convinces him to get away for awhile.

Deciding on a Hawaiian getaway, Peter is stunned to find Sarah Marshall already on the island when he arrives and she's attached at the lips to her new rock star boyfriend, Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). On the bright side, a beautiful young hotel worker named Rachel (Mila Kunis) takes pity on him and decides to help him get his mind off his ex.

Jason Segal not only stars here, he wrote the smart, offbeat screenplay for Forgetting Sarah Marshall and the care he takes to avoid typical romantic comedy moments bring depth and brains to a film that could have been just another collection of broad gags. Segal crafts terrific characters, creates believable conflicts and wrings big laughs from moments that most anyone will be able to relate to.

Among the many things I loved about this terrific comedy romance is how director Nicholas Stoller and  Jason Segal balance Peter's flaws with Sarah's and avoids making her into a villain. The same can be said of Brand's airhead rocker who, though his quite shallow, proves to be something slightly more than just a walking gag.

Mila Kunis shines in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Bringing a dash of crazy, foul mouthed hussy to an idealized version of a dreamgirl, Kunis shows bravery and chops hanging with the Apatow crew's brand of sweet offensiveness. From her girl's gone wild moment to her foul mouthed tirades, she surprises at every turn, and proves to be more than the equal of her male counterparts.

On top of the strong central story Segal, director Nicolas Stoller and producer Apatow also find room for terrific supporting players like Jonah Hill, Paul Rudd and Jack McBrayer. Best of all however, in the briefest of roles, in William Baldwin. In a pitch perfect send up of David Caruso's CSI Miami cop, Baldwin is a hilarious scene stealer. Really, just about everything works in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. If you can get past multiple scenes of male nudity, you will have a great time with this terrific little movie.

Movie Review: Dora and the Lost City of Gold

Dora and the Lost City of Gold (2019) 

Directed by James Bobin

Written by Nicholas Stoller, Matthew Robinson

Starring Eva Longoria, Eugenio Derbez

Release Date August 9th, 2019 

Published August 9th, 2019 

Dora and the Lost City of Gold is a strange movie. This adaptation of the famed cartoon series, Dora the Explorer, attempts to bridge the gap from the toddler-centric cartoon to a modern day adventure aimed at tweens and young teens. That this bridge turns out to be rather solid is quite a welcome surprise. Dora and the Lost City of Gold isn’t exactly a mind-blowing cinematic experience but it is modestly entertaining and inoffensively fun. 

Dora (Isabella Moner) grew up in the jungle with a monkey for a best friend and a backpack and a map as her toys. Fearless and curious, Dora from an early age explored every inch of jungle she could. Dora’s parents, Cole (Michael Pena) and Elena (Eva Longoria), are explorers who live to discover hidden places in the world. Distinctively however, Cole and Elena are explorers and not treasure hunters. 

Cole and Elena instill in Dora a deep respect for not disturbing the places they explore but experiencing them as they are. This is a rare attitude unfortunately, as most people in the business of being in the jungle, do so for profit and glory. Dora shares her parents’ love of history and learning and her curiosity drives her to take risks, risks that unfortunately lead mom and dad to worry for her safety.

Mom and Dad are on the verge of discovering the Lost City of Gold, the Incan legend about an unimaginable treasure. They are ready to go and explore this hidden treasure but when Dora nearly breaks herself in half trying to find one more clue for them, they decide that the trip is just too dangerous for her. Dora will have to go to America and stay with her aunt, uncle and her cousin, Diego (Jeff Wahlberg). 

Diego’s parents used to live and work and explore in the jungle just like Cole and Elena. This led to Dora and Diego growing up as best friends, going on imaginary adventures together with Boots The Monkey (voice of Dany Trejo), a talking Map and Dora’s animated backpack always filled with exactly the tools that they needed. That was 10 years ago however, when Diego’s parents moved to California. 

Today, Diego is as much a city kid as anyone at his High School. He has memories of his cousin Dora, but High School has made him anxious, cynical and self-involved, the antithesis of the bright, cheerful and eager to please Dora. The best friends reunion that Dora hoped for doesn’t go as planned, nor does her first days in High School where she’s picked on, mocked and struggles to fit in. This doesn’t deter Dora from being her cheerful self, but it is troubling for her. 

Then, the plot truly kicks in. Dora’s parents go missing during their search for the Lost City of Gold and Dora is kidnapped along with Diego, and two classmates, Randy (Nicholas Coombe) and Sammie (Madeleine Madden), during a school field trip. The kidnappers want Dora to lead them to her parents and the trail to the Lost City of Gold. When they arrive back in the jungle however, a friend of Dora’s parents, Alejandro (Eugenio Derbez) is there for the rescue. He along with Dora and the gang will have to find Dora’s parents before the kidnappers do in order to survive this adventure.

Dora and the Lost City of Gold was written by Nicholas Stoller of Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Neighbors fame and it is quite a departure for him. His wheelhouse is clearly a raunchy comedy but, don’t forget, he was also producer on the most recent Muppet Movies, The Muppets and Muppets Most Wanted so kids movies with an edge are not all that much of a stretch for Stoller. Not that there is much edge at all to Dora, but there is some experimentation. 

Dora and the Lost City of Gold was directed by James Bobin who worked with Stoller on Muppets Most Wanted. In that movie, Stoller and Bobin used irreverent references to classic movies to tell the story of The Muppets in a fashion that bridged the gap between the target kid audience and an audience of nostalgic adults. Here, they employ a similar style, if similar is the right word for the direct lifting of entire scenes from the Indiana Jones canon. 

The ending of Dora and the Lost City of Gold borders on being a shot for shot remake of the ending of Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade. It’s barely even heightened with the main difference being that the bad guy in Dora doesn’t die horrifically on screen. If you’re wondering why I haven’t issued a spoiler alert because I just talked about the ending, trust me when I say I haven’t spoiled anything. Dora and The Lost City of Gold is not a movie that gets its appeal from its plot.

So, did I enjoy Dora and the Lost City of Gold? Yes, for the most part. After I got over the fact that I was watching an adaptation of Dora the Explorer, I did legitimately find myself enjoying much of Lost City of Gold. Young Isabelle Moner is a fine young actress whose enthusiasm is rather infectious. She and the rest of the teenage cast are fun to watch, they appear to be having a great time making this movie and that feeling comes through the screen. 

That said, it’s not all great. For one thing, I would be very pleased to never see Eugenio Derbez on the big screen again. Derbez’s comic style is basically being as clueless and obnoxious as possible. It’s a style that is akin to fingernails on a chalkboard for me but I could see where kids might enjoy his clownish behavior. That’s the nicest thing I can say about Derbez, he’s a giant goof that children may laugh at because they don’t know any better. 

Derbez aside, it's rather improbable given its unique origin but, Dora and the Lost City of Gold is a movie I recommend. Dora is fun enough, it's exciting enough, it has just enough laughs and fourth wall breaking fun. I never would have expected it but I am actually recommending Dora and the Lost City of Gold. That's with the caveat that it is not for all audiences, this is a kids movie, but it is a solid, inoffensive, good natured kids movie that parents won't hate. 

Movie Review Fun with Dick and Jane

Fun with Dick and Jane (2005) 

Directed by Dean Parisot

Written by Judd Apatow, Nicholas Stoller 

Starring Jim Carrey, Tea Leoni, Alec Baldwin, Richard Jenkins 

Release Date December 21st, 2005 

Published December 20th, 2005 

Remakes are an inherently lazy project. No matter how well made and recreated they are, remakes are  still telling someone else's story and making a profit on it. Laziness is the hallmark of the remake of 1977's Fun With Dick and Jane. With a talented cast including Jim Carrey and Tea Leoni and a script polish by the very funny Judd Apatow, Fun With Dick and Jane is an all the more depressing effort for the talent involved.

Dick Harper (Jim Carrey) has a great job working in corporate communications for a massive corporation called Globodyne. Things are just about to get even better for Dick when the company CEO, slimily portrayed by Alec Baldwin, decides to promote Dick to vice president and put him on TV to talk up Globodyne's latest financial numbers on a Moneyline-esque cable show. Unfortunately as Dick is putting a smiling face on the numbers the stock tanks live on the air. Dick, as the new face of the company, is completely screwed. The CEO has bankrupted the company, including all the severance and pension funds, and is in the wind, leaving Dick and the company's chief finance officer (Richard Jenkins) to take all of the heat.

This could not be worse timing for the Harper family because Dick's wife Jane (Tea Leoni) has just quit her job as a travel agent to spend more time with their son who is being raised by the nanny (the kid had even adopted the nanny's own broken English accent, in an ugly, awful gag).  Now with both Dick and Jane out of work, and Dick a virtual pariah in his chosen field, the family faces losing all of their accumulated wealth and their home.

After unfortunate attempts by both Dick and Jane to work at new jobs, Dick at a Wal-mart clone and then as a day laborer, in yet another awful gag, and Jane as an aerobics instructor and product tester, the frustrated couple turn to armed robbery to solve their money troubles. Using their son's toy weapon and the rationalization that they were screwed by the system, the couple sets about robbing convenience stores, coffee shops and eventually even an attempted bank heist before finally turning to revenge against the CEO that put them in this predicament.

Fun With Dick and Jane fails because director Dean Parisot and writers Judd Apatow, Nicolas Stoller and Peter Tollin fail to establish whether they are attempting broad slapstick or dark satire. Most of the film plays to star Jim Carrey's strength, broad physical comedy. However, the story of a family losing everything and turning to desperate measures to keep their home is not a story that lends itself to big slapsticky laughs. Thus, the film fishes around searching for laughs in broad set pieces unable to reconcile those with the film's dark subject.

The filmmakers try everything from funny costumes (the couple dressed as Sonny and Cher with Carrey as Cher) to movie parody (Dick and Jane driving a stolen car into a storefront dressed as the Blues Brothers), to irreverent racial humor, but nothing connects with anything more than mild amusement. And, the racial humor is downright offensive. Watching it you don't laugh as much as you squirm in discomfort. 

Director Dean Parisot was the talented director of 2000'sGalaxy Quest, a good natured ribbing of the Star Trek series. There is nothing groundbreaking about that little movie but it hits its target well with good-natured parody. Parisot may be the wrong director for the much darker Dick and Jane in which he irritatingly attempts to force broad comedy out of narrow material. Parisot never finds the right angle on the film's corporate satire and fails miserably in establishing why Dick and Jane must turn to crime in order to survive.

The corporate scandal that costs Dick his job is merely a quick way to get him out of a job so we can get to the supposedly funny attempts at crime. There are a couple of unconvincing scenes of both Dick and Jane trying to work low paying jobs and failing miserably but these scenes fail to help us understand why they must turn to crime. We can feel the plot forcing them toward crime because the crimes are where the supposed comedy is and the filmmakers show their desperation to get through a few setup scenes so they can get the stars into their funny costumes.

Because Jim Carrey and Tea Leoni are such terrifically talented comic actors there are a number of solid laughs in Fun With Dick and Jane. A scene where the couple commit a home invasion robbery dressed in black ninja gear and voice disguisers is funny for the way the couple are like children playing with new toys. Another scene where Dick and Jane ponder their situation while sitting in the unfinished hole where their new hot tub was to be shows each actor's ability to connect with us on a sympathetic level.

Dick and Jane by the standards of decent society aren't good people. They commit serious crimes that are humorously treated by director Dean Parisot but we are never allowed scenes that might help us forgive them their crimes. Simply saying 'it's just a comedy' does not excuse the fact that our protagonists are unpunished criminals. The 1977 version of Fun With Dick and Jane, I'm told, established its heroes as Robin Hood outlaws whose crimes have an undercurrent of social conscience. Yes they were robbers, but when they knocked over banks they also attempted to burn the debt records of other troubled families so that maybe they to could be debt free.

No such moralizing in the new version where the motivation is solely material and selfish. The modern Dick and Jane are concerned about maintaining their social status and regaining their material wealth. A scene where Dick and Jane retrieve their LCD big screen television using some of their ill-gotten gains is played as a moment of triumph with their young son celebrating wildly. I guess, like the nanny, that television was another parent to the kid, which is yet another bit of sardonic humor the film fails to capitalize on.

Spoiler warning!

When at the end our heroes target Baldwin's corporate criminal and end up turning Robin Hood and stealing his money and giving it back to the employees he screwed, we are supposed to admire them. But you can see the plot gears turning as the filmmakers try to redeem these lost characters with one act of deus ex machina, the hand of god, putting everything right with the world in less than 10 minutes screen time.

Fun With Dick and Jane ends with a dedication to the corporations like Enron that have been subjects of the biggest financial swindles in history. Unfortunately, what was intemded to play as an ironic thumb in the eye of these corporations comes off as more of an honest thank you for inspiring this film's failed ideas.  Fun With Dick and Jane never develops into any kind of satire of corporate scandals. The corporate crimes in the movie are a mere backdrop for the flailing slapstick physical comedy. 

Fun With Dick and Jane is yet another sad, lazy Hollywood remake. The work of slacking geniuses picking up paychecks rather than actually making a funny movie.