Movie Review: Dinner for Schmucks

Dinner for Schmucks (2010) 

Directed by Jay Roach 

Written by David Guion 

Starring Steve Carell, Paul Rudd, Bruce Greenwood, Jemaine Clement, Zach Galifianakis

Release Date July 30th, 2010 

Published July 29th, 2010 

Barry (Steve Carell) is a schmuck. He has no couth and is completely unaware of the feelings of others. He is not malicious, merely clueless. Barry's hobby is dressing and posing dead stuffed mice in intricate dioramas and when he meets Tim (Paul Rudd) for the first time it's while retrieving another dead mouse from the middle of a busy street and bouncing off the hood of his car.

That Barry is a schmuck is stipulated by the title Dinner for Schmucks but that Tim too is something of a schmuck is the overarching point of the movie Dinner for Schmucks directed by Jay Roach whose talent lies in crafting intricate dioramas of schmucks being schmucks whether they are played by Paul Rudd or Ben Stiller or Mike Myers.

Tim is a corporate climber looking to make a move to the corner office. When his opportunity arrives it comes with a caveat; Tim must find a loser to bring to a dinner at his boss's (Bruce Greenwood). The loser must be a real loser, one he and his fellow corporate VP's (Daily Show's Larry Wilmore and Office Space's Ron Livingston) can make fun of.

This is an obviously jerky scenario, one that Tim is not comfortable with and when his girlfriend Julie (Stephanie Szostak) tells him not to go through with it that seems to settle things. Then, Tim hits Barry with his car and well, mice dioramas of The Last Supper and the Mona Lisa look like just the thing to win over the boss.

The story is thin but it works as the perfect coat hanger of a plot on which to hang a number of big gags and wacky characters. Among the wackiest is Flight of the Conchords star Jemaine Clement as Kieran a mind blowingly odd artist. Though Schmuckish enough to be the perfect Dinner guest, he's actually an art client of Tim's girlfriend with designs on sleeping with her. Kieran's art involves paintings of himself as various animals, more often than not goats.

Wait till you meet the rest of the dinner guests. But, that's not till the end of Dinner for Schmucks. On the way we get to know Barry as he goes about destroying Tim's relationship, apartment and job. And yet, somehow we don't mind. Steve Carell pulls off quite a trick in Dinner for Schmucks and gets us on Barry's side even as he is a catalyst for destruction.

Steve Carell nails the role of nerdy, off-putting weirdo and yet manages to win us over. Believe it or not, by the end of Dinner for Schmucks you are ready to see this weirdo get a happily ever after, one fitting of his completely bizarre self. As for Mr. Rudd, as he was straight man to Jason Segal's oddball in I Love You Man he is an even better, funnier and more effective straight man to Mr. Carell.

The strength of Dinner for Schmucks lies in big gags and bigger goofballs. Jemaine Clement, The Hangover's Zach Galifianakis, The I.T Crowd's Chris O'Dowd and puppet comic Jeff Dunham are just a sampling of the wackos who bring the laughs in Dinner for Schmucks. Each has maybe a scene or two but it's all they need to deliver their punchline and get out. 

The classic showbiz cliché always leave'em laughing is the heart of Dinner for Schmucks. The characters get in; get the laugh and get out; making way for the next set up and punchline and payoff. It may not pay off with a compelling story but the laughs more than make up for the lack of a hardy narrative.

Movie Review: Dr Seuss' Horton Hears A Who

Horton Hears a Who (2008) 

Directed by Jimmy Hayward, Steve Martino 

Written by Cinco Paul, Ken Daurio 

Starring Carol Burnett, Jim Carrey, Steve Carell, Amy Poehler, Seth Rogen, Will Arnett

Release Date March 8th, 2008 

Published March 7th, 2008 

We get a lot of animated movies every years and a number of very good ones. The artists of modern animated features are, more often than not, responsible caring, smart people who have your childrens best interests at heart. That is certainly the case with the team behind the latest Dr. Seuss adaptation Horton Hears A Who.

Jim Carrey gives voice to Horton the elephant, one Theodore "Dr. Seuss" Geisel's most enduring characters. In the land of Nool Horton is popular with the little ones and teaches them about the forest. His non-traditional teaching style is frowned upon by the sour Kangaroo (Carol Burnett) who fears Horton is causing the children to use their imaginations.

The Kangaroo grows even more sour when Horton takes to talking to a small speck atop a flower. You see, according to Horton, there is a tiny population on that speck called Who's. Horton has made contact with the Who's Mayor (Steve Carell) and has vowed to protect the populace and get the speck to the safety of a mountaintop sunflower.

Horton rescued the speck after it was dislodged from another flower, something that has caused big trouble for the who's from earthquakes to massive shifts in weather patterns. If they don't get to safety soon they will be destroyed. Standing in Horton's way is that dyspeptic Kangaroo and her mean sidekick Vlad (Will Arnett) a vulture who vows to destroy the speck free of charge.

The dramatic stakes are high but Horton never gets to serious about it's situation. This is first class kids entertainment with both big laughs and smart subtext. Jimmy Hayward and Steve Martino were the minds behind this adaptation and they have kept much of Dr. Seuss's material intact, not the least is his undying respect and reverence for a child's mind.

The exceptional voice cast also keeps things light and fun. Jim Carrey, Steve Carell and Carol Burnett do a tremendous job finding just the right tones for the lead roles. Meanwhile, Seth Rogan, Jonah Hill and Amy Poehler offer terrific support.

Horton Hears A Who is as smart as it is funny. Underlying the story of Horton and the Mayor's heroic journey are ideas about spirituality and environmental concern that maybe Dr. Seuss didn't intend but become prominent in the expansion of Horton from a small book to a feature length film. The movie is about believing in something whether you can see it or not. It celebrates the imagination but also the capacity to believe in something beyond reason. Horton cloaks faith in the veneer of modern animated humor and somehow never comes off preachy.

The animation of Horton could not be a better representation of Dr. Seuss's classic style mixed with modern animated technology. The opening image of a drop of water on a leaf is breathtakingly realistic and there are striking images throughout Horton. Images that catch the eye without overstatement. Impressive and not overwhelming, a delicate balancing act. This is one terrific little movie. If you have kids then you must have Horton Hears A Who, a new animated classic for your collection.

Movie Review: Evan Almighty

Evan Almighty (2007) 

Directed by Tom Shadyac 

Written by Steve Oedekirk 

Starring Steve Carell, Morgan Freeman, Lauren Graham, John Goodman, Wanda Sykes

Release Date June 22nd, 2007

Published June 21st, 2007 

I found Bruce Almighty a little puzzling. Was Jim Carrey God for the entire world or just for the city of Buffalo where the film is set? Who knows, I guess the real question is why I am dragging such a logical question in to a discussion of a movie where logic is the least important thing imaginable? Bruce Almighty wasn't really a movie, in the sense of a series of scenes that coalesce into a story. Rather, Bruce Almighty was a concept blown up to movie length. Director Tom Shadyac and writer Steve Oedekirk simply thought of a one line pitch, Jim Carrey as God, and worked from there. The same creative bankruptcy plagues the even more logic free pseudo-sequel Evan Almighty. This film emerged from yet another one line pitch, Steve Carell as Noah.

Evan Baxter (Carell) was Buffalo's number 1 newscaster. Now he is Buffalo's representative in Congress having recently won election. Moving with his family, including his wife Joan (Lauren Graham) and their three sons, to Washington D.C; Evan has promised voters that he is going to change the world. God (Morgan Freeman) likes Evan's ambition and decides to offer Evan the opportunity to really change the world.

Dropping wood and tools on Evan's lawn, God tasks the former newsman to build an ark. The flood is coming and Evan will have to have the boat built in time if he is going to change the world and save a few lives. Evan is naturally skeptical but when animals begin following him wherever he goes, and he sprouts facial hair that Charlton Heston in The 10 Commandments would envy, he can no longer fight what God has asked him to do.

Directed by Tom Shadyac, who also directed Bruce Almighty, Evan Almighty is a spirited but lunkheaded comedy. Star Steve Carell does everything short of roll over and beg for laughs as he tries to wring some humor out the muck of Evan Almighty. It's a tribute to his talent and that of his picking up a paycheck co-star Morgan Freeman, that Evan Almighty does have a happy vibe throughout.

Unfortunately for both performers, director Tom Shadyac simply cannot get ahold of this material. Every plot strand seems to run off in a different direction and he simply lacks the ability to coax it all back into a cohesive whole. Meanwhile, as the story drifts away, the special effects, from CGI condors, tigers and bears to the abysmal, Ed Wood gone computerized, flood, all are strictly amateur efforts.

There are numerous things wrong with Evan Almighty aside from Tom Shadyac's ability to bring it all together as a cohesive whole. A glaring problem is the films gutlessness. This is a biblical tale, God is one of the stars, and yet real religion is scarce. We never learn what denomination Evan is nor do we see him in church. Piety is not entirely necessary but the film never takes a stance on just how religious Evan is aside from a brief, begrudging prayer.

This is also a film in which politics are involved and yet the filmmakers seem to have no concept of how politics or democracy works. As Evan gets into his ark building, robe wearing, shaggy bearded business he worries that he may be fired from his job. Evan is a Congressman. To fire him, the voters have to vote him out; yet he acts as if John Goodman's evil elder congressman is his boss with the ability to banish him if he feels like it.

(Side note, I am aware that Congress can expel a member of Congress, however, one single Congressman cannot fire another Congressman.) 

Of the glaring political misnomers, where is the President? The alternate universe of Evan Almighty has no President. He's not even referred to. One would think that if a nutty Congressman started dressing like Noah and building a giant ark and bringing animals, two by two, from across the globe, the President of the United States just might notice it and have a comment or two.

And in case you were wondering where Evan stands politically, the film does not assign him a political party. Fearing they might turn off potential moviegoers, Evan's politics are mysterious at best. He drives a Hummer which some would see as being Republican-ish, but that is not a great indicator. This might not matter if Evan were something of a political dupe who got elected by chance thanks to a welcoming smile and positive demeanor but the story establishes quickly that Evan is neither incompetent or incapable.

As with all things in mainstream Hollywood, this is a box office calculation. The movie must appear as all things to all people so as not to offend any potential audience. Hence, no religious affiliation for Evan nor a political party. This, of course, only serves to muddy the waters of the films comic intentions. It can't be a satire of anything because that would require a perspective. There is a muddled pro-environment message. John Goodman's evil congressman is trying to push through an environmentally unsound bill, but the details of this plot are too confused for any useful context.

So why did I walk out of Evan Almighty smiling? I'm not exactly sure. There is a big dance sequence over the credits with a lot of behind the scenes footage that is a whole lot of fun. There is also the quick witted performance of comedian Wanda Sykes who seems to be reprising her role from another awful movie, the Jane Fonda-Jennifer Lopez pseudo-comedy Monster In Law.

As she did in Monster In Law, Sykes performs the service of comic fixer. When scenes lack humor, as so many scenes in Evan Almighty seem to, director Shadyac simply cuts to Sykes for yet another of her quick witted quips and put downs. You can sense even when the quips were scripted and when they weren't, the likely ad-libs of Ms. Sykes are far funnier than the scripted ones.

There is a scene where Evan confronts congress in his full Noah garb and Sykes provides comic commentary from an entirely different location, speaking to no one but us in the audience. Intentional or not, this scene seems cobbled together as if it simply weren't working and the editors cut in clips of Sykes to make the scenes funny.

Steve Carell does what he can with this inelegant script and gamely throws his body into as much slapstick as he can endure. His attempts are kind of funny in that classic three stooges, laugh at someone else's pain sort of way, but when not throwing himself to the ground or hitting himself with a hammer, Carell is left at the mercy of this ludicrous script and left only a little dance to try and bring some life to scenes. The dance gets old quick.

Cowardly, confused and amateurish, Evan Almighty is a terrifically bad movie. And yet, I feel bad trashing it too much. Steve Carell is so talented and likable that I want to cut this film all the slack I can. That isn't much. Wanda Sykes is a real scene stealer but there is no need to waste your time seeking her out in this film when DVD's of her stand up material are readily available and free of the yoke of pulling this movie behind it.

Evan Almighty is the most expensive comedy ever made and one of the biggest wastes of money Hollywood has brought to the screen in a long while.

Movie Review: Foxcatcher

Foxcatcher (2014) 

Directed by Bennett Miller 

Written by E. Max Frye, Mark Futterman 

Starring Steve Carell, Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo

Release Date November 14th, 2014 

Published November 12th, 2014 

Single-minded to the point of obsession and with a documentary dedication to real-life stories and themes about the corrupting influence of money, director Bennett Miller uses his films as a prism to look at the world. From Capote to Moneyball and now in Foxcatcher, Miller's dedication to exposing hypocrisy and greed while reveling in fascinating real life stories has turned out three consecutive masterpieces. 

“Foxcatcher” tells the terrifying true tale of the events that led to the death of American Olympic wrestler David Schultz (Mark Ruffalo). Although Schultz is really only a supporting player as the story plays out, his death and the eerie signals of tragedy float over every aspect of the film. Much of what we see centers on Schultz’s brother, and fellow Olympic Gold Medalist Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum), who fell under the spell of his brother’s murderer John Du Pont (Steve Carell) just as he was training for the Olympic games in 1988. 

The relationship between Du Pont and Mark is not unlike that of Truman Capote and the killer Perry Jones in “Capote.” Capote takes advantage of Perry’s lack of intelligence to get what he wants, but his obsession with what he wants ends up consuming him. The same goes for Du Pont as he sees Mark as a pathway to being considered a great leader of men, the coach of the next great Olympian. Capote, of course, doesn’t become the villain in the way Du Pont eventually does, but their single-mindedness is similar as is their quirkiness and the outsider qualities with which both men wrestled their entire lives. 

Billy Beane, too, had outsider qualities that likely appealed to Miller. Beane was a standout ballplayer in high school who was seen as a “can’t miss” prospect. And then he missed. Beane then found his niche as a talent scout. With a single-minded purpose and the use of Jonah Hill’s Peter Brand, Beane began a quest for greatness with his often tactless reflex of powers. Beane is portrayed in Moneyball as a mercenary negotiator who stayed clear of his players so he could continue to remain a mercenary when deciding their fate. 

All three stories share single-minded determination and purpose that leads to either grand tragedy or grand triumph --- or, in the case of “Capote,” a mixture of both in equal measure. The style of all the stories is reminiscent of a documentary, because the most compelling scenes often depict two people in a room in a sort of talking head conversation that recounts the details of their lives in illuminating fashion. The tactic is most obvious in “Capote,” in which the legendary writer is essentially a documentarian with words instead of a camera. 

Some of the best scenes in “Moneyball” are between Pitt and Hill while reviewing their philosophies, with Pitt’s Billy Beane coaxing Hill’s Brand into revealing the cold-hearted numbers behind his baseball philosophy. Numerous scenes throughout “Moneyball” play out with people in chairs being interviewed about their intentions. Beane talks to the management team of the Cleveland Indians, trying to make a trade and being grilled about his unusual approach to choosing players. In one scene, Beane is interviewed by his team’s owner in a comfortable leather chair. Then Billy interviews Peter Brand about what would come to be called “Moneyball.” This approach continues until the film ends with Beane in an interview for the Boston Red Sox general manager position. 

In “Foxcatcher,” the relationship between Mark Schultz and John Du Pont essentially begins with an interview. Du Pont requests that Mark come to his home in Pennsylvania for a conversation. They end up in Du Pont’s trophy room, where Du Pont asks Mark about his family, his workouts and his goals. It’s a revealing scene for both characters, but we get our best sense of Mark as someone who is easily impressed, a quality that is his eventual undoing as Du Pont proves to be spectacularly unimpressive aside from his incredible wealth. 

The corruption of money plays a key role in a devastating scene in “Capote.” The most compelling scene depicts Clifton Collins Jr. as the infamous killer Perry Smith, who reveals that he and his partner killed the Clutter family because the criminals believed the family home had $10,000 inside their Kansas home. In the end, Smith and his partner walked away with $40. The senselessness of the cold-hearted slaying is heart-wrenching.  

Money is in the very title of “Moneyball,” which includes incisive commentary on how finances have corrupted Major League baseball. For a time it seemed that buying players was enough to purchase glorious championships -- the purity of simply playing the game and winning was being overshadowed by contracts and press releases. “Moneyball” is ironically shown as an impure way of choosing ballplayers, but it actually celebrates playing the game in the most fundamental way. “Moneyball” undermines the big-money teams by simply beating them in an actual game, and not in a boardroom with a contract. 

Finally, in “Foxcatcher,” money is the poison that flows through the life of John Du Pont. Money isolated him from reality. The disconnect between Du Pont's fantasy of himself and his sad reality was directly related to his unending wealth. Money, too, was David Schultz’s downfall. Although Schultz surely was not a greedy man his desire for a comfortable, steady job working for Du Pont caused him to overlook a number of warning signs about the millionaire eccentric. These red flags sent even his less-than-astute brother Mark fleeing the Foxcatcher estate. 

Single-minded purpose has driven greatness and tragedy since the beginning of time. Money came along later to provide further incentive and invite madness. Miller captures this reality in pseudo-documentary form. He shows his viewers that single-mindedness and money can combine for greatness or for tragedy or both. 

Movie Review: Despicable Me

Despicable Me (2010) 

Directed by Chris Renaud, Pierre Coffin

Written by Cinco Paul, Ken Daurio 

Starring Steve Carell, Russell Brand, Jason Segal, 

Release Date July 9th, 2010 

Published July 8th, 2010 

Gru (Steve Carell), the star of “Despicable Me” is a super villain. We know this because he is dressed all in black. He has a bald head, pale skin and a villainous pointy nose. He carries a freeze ray which he uses to get to the head of the line at Starbucks and he's mean to children. If Gru were anymore the bad guy he would be petting a cat a la Blofeld and twisting his mustache.

When the Great Pyramid goes missing Gru's mother (Julie Andrews) calls to congratulate him and he is forced to reveal he wasn't the big bad guy who stole it. Turns out, there is a new Super villain on the scene and he is stealing Gru's headlines. Don't worry though, Gru has a plan to get his place on the front pages back, with the help of his evil assistant Dr. Nefario (Russell Brand) and his hundreds Banana Slug looking Minions, Gru plans to steal the Moon. All he needs are the funds.

In a scene that earns the biggest laughs in “Despicable Me,” Gru heads for the Bank of Evil to pitch his Moon stealing idea. Keep an eye out for one terrifically fun toss off sight gag at the Bank that is both timely and hilarious. To get his funds the bank needs Gru to first steal a top secret shrink ray that he can use to shrink the moon to carry on size.

Oh, but that new villain in town, he's on the trail of the shrink ray and the moon as well. His name is Vector (Jason Segal), really Victor, but he thinks Vector is much more evil and when he gets the shrink ray, he puts Gru in a desperate situation. Through some strange and evil circumstances, Gru hatches a plan to steal from Vector involving three cute little orphans.

You can guess where this story is going and likely where it will end up. Three cute girls humanize the heartless villain yada, yada, yada, Pixar level storytelling this is not. What “Despicable Me” lacks in intellect it more than makes up for with big laughs. The directorial team Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud do a terrific job playing off of classic movie super villains from James Bond to Superman. 

Parody is “Despicable Me's comfort zone but a healthy amount of cartoon slapstick, often involving the mumbling, bumbling minions, also earns big laughs. The voice cast brings a few of their own laughs as Steve Carell's Eastern European growl, Russell Brand's throaty Brit, and Jason Segal's nerd voice each has a moment to gurgle a good line. 

”Despicable Me” doesn't have the ingenuity of the Pixar cartoons but it accomplishes the simple goal of earning big laughs. The film has heart, great characters and tremendous voice acting. It also has arguably the best soundtrack of 2010. Pharrell Williams of NERD engineers a big beat Greek chorus to Gru and the girls' adventure and it's the perfect score for the big laughs and big fun of “Despicable Me.”

Movie Review: Welcome to Marwen

Welcome to Marwen (2018) 

Directed by Robert Zemeckis 

Written by Robert Zemeckis, Caroline Zemeckis 

Starring Steve Carell, Leslie Mann, Merritt Wever, Janelle Monae, Eiza Gonzalez, Gwendoline Christie

Release Date December 21st, 2018 

Published December 20th, 2018

Welcome to Marwen is a cringe-inducing drama about a man who suffered a terrible, tragic beating and reclaims his identity through art. There is a good movie to be made of this concept, but this isn’t it. Perhaps the documentary made about this story, called Marwencol, is that movie. I haven’t seen that doc unfortunately, and so I can only judge this story based on this movie and ugh, it’s not an easy sit. 

Not long prior to when this story is set, Mark Hogancamp (Steve Carell), was brutally attacked outside of a bar in his small New York town. He was left in a coma and the subsequent traumas included losing his memory of anything that happened prior to the attack and losing the ability to draw, a long time passion. As we meet Mark he is indulging in his fantasy world, known as Marwen, wherein he is a heroic World War 2 pilot who is rescued from the Nazis by a group of gun toting women who are mythic representations of the real women in Mark’s life. 

Marwen is Mark’s at home art installation where he uses 12 inch dolls to represent himself and the women in his life. There is Roberta (Merritt Wever), a kindly hobby shop owner who helps Mark obtain his dolls and supplies, Julie (Janelle Monae), Mark’s former physical therapist, Carlalla (Eiza Gonzalez), a co-worker of Mark’s at a local bar, and Anna (Gwendoline Christie), Mark’s visiting nurse. There are also two other fantasy characters in Marwen but we will get to them as they are both troublesome. 

There will soon be a new character in Marwen. Mark has just gotten a new neighbor, Nicol (Leslie Mann), who Mark is immediately smitten with. After seeing her and briefly meeting her and finding her very kind and patient, Mark goes to the hobby shop and buys a doll on which he projects her image. He even names the doll Nicol and begins to position her romantically with his doll avatar Hoagie. Here’s where the cringing begins and does not let up in Welcome to Marwen. 

Welcome to Marwen is quite loosely based on the life story of the real Mark Hogancamp, a life that has already been rendered in a well-reviewed documentary. Much of the other details are inventions of Zemeckis and writer Caroline Thompson who might have been better advised to stick closer to the real story. The invented romantic aspirations of Mark are creepy and cringe-y and render him difficult to take. 

The real Mark Hogancamp never had a Nicol, he named his characters and his town after his ex-wife, who was long out of the picture before he was attacked and a good friend whom he had no romantic designs on. The real Mark Hogancamp, on some level, understands that he’s not in a place where romance is right for him. As portrayed in this movie, Mark is a true weirdo whose fixation on Nicol has the earmarks of creepy stalker behavior, something I am sure was not intended in this supposedly uplifting story. 

I will put it to you dear reader, a strange man you’ve only just met begins to fixate on you, purchases a doll that he makes to look like you, begins to have that doll in a romance with a doll that looks like him, are you cool with that? I haven’t mentioned that he also has a few pairs of Nicol's shoes that he likes to wear and that is arguably the least creepy thing happening here. Again, the movie doesn’t intend any of this to be creepy but the way it is crafted on screen makes it unintentionally, off-puttingly, creepy. 

The movie doesn’t do much of anything to make Mark likable. Other than casting the innately likable Steve Carell, the film portrays Mark as awkward, humorless, childlike, a poor dresser, prone to violent attacks of fantasy, and a hermit. The women in his life indulge all of these qualities and reinforce them to a degree that goes beyond kindness and into the realm of fantasy where most of them only exist. The female characters in Welcome to Marwen are mostly the invention of the filmmakers and are not part of the real story as portrayed in the documentary, or so I have been told. 

Speaking of fantasy characters, there is another controversial inclusion in Welcome to Marwen. Diane Kruger voices a character named Deja who is the one character in the film universe that is not based on any of the other characters in the movie. Mark describes Deja as the Belgian Witch of Marwen, a woman so deeply in love with Hoagie that she makes his other potential love interests vanish. 

Deja is a supremely clumsy metaphor for addiction. She wears a bright blue glove that is the same color as the pain medication that Mark has been abusing. It’s hinted that Mark’s drinking problem, another addiction, was what drove away the wife he can only recall from photographic evidence and the fact that Mark was drunk the night he got beat up is part of his notion that he may have deserved the beating he received. By vanquishing Deja, Mark is symbolically vanquishing his addiction. If only life were so simple as defeating a doll. .

I debated whether to include a discussion of the other character in Marwen but I will mention it. In yet another creepy and tone deaf detail, Zemeckis includes a scene of Mark indulging in his pastime of watching his favorite porno actress, Suzette, who is portrayed by Zemeckis’ wife Leslie (Eww!). Mark likes Suzette so much that he made her a doll character in Marwen and when Nicol asks about her, Mark is not hesitant about explaining her origin in yet another cringe-y bit of tin-eared dialogue. 

It’s a shame all of this goes down this way because some of Welcome to Marwen isn’t completely terrible. The film uses some wonderful technical wizardry to bring Mark’s art to life. Mark doesn’t just play with these dolls, he poses them and takes photos of them that are genuine works of art. The film even builds to Mark’s art exhibit. As we watch Mark work, his art is alive and moving around and having dialogue and it’s all rather inventive looking.

This could be a device that deepens the story and creates an artful insight into Mark’s troubled, damaged, mind but as played by all involved in Welcome to Marwen, the dolls are yet another clumsy metaphorical device. They are there to deliver exposition and give simple metaphoric representations of Mark’s mental state. It doesn’t help that Zemeckis uses the dolls to deliver yet another creepy punchline regarding Mark; he occasionally poses his female dolls topless. Bearing in mind that these are dolls based on people in his life, it plays as another creepy and entirely unnecessary detail that the filmmakers seem to think is charming and funny. 

From what I understand about the documentary, none of what Zemeckis puts into the movie is true of the real Mark Hogancamp. He might be a creepy pervert but from what I have read about the documentary, it appears more interested in him as an oddball character and a talented artist. The romantic plot that Zemeckis forces into the movie is a completely misguided nod to mainstream filmmaking that requires that all quirky male protagonists have a love interest, even if the character has no qualities that would attract said love interest. 

To be fair, the Nicol character, as played by Leslie Mann, never realizes she’s a love interest until a truly hard to watch scene in which she has to let him down easy. It’s a supremely hard to watch and misguided scene that had me squirming in my seat. Mark is a character that is hard enough to take without the movie so forcefully trying to be sympathetic to his misguided ideas of romance. It’s meant to be an insight into his struggle but it all just comes off as forcefully sad. 

Welcome to Marwen is a technical marvel in some ways but mostly, it’s just hard to watch. The characters are all offbeat caricatures, the dialogue is full of the kind of lazy exposition you expect from action movies not from character driven drama and while the technical wizardry is neat, it can’t make up for the many other deficiencies in the story and characters of Welcome to Marwen. 

Movie Review: Vice

Vice (2018) 

Directed by Adam McKay

Written by Adam McKay 

Starring Christian Bale, Amy Adam, Steve Carell, Allison Pill, Jesse Plemons, Sam Rockwell, Tyler Perry

Release Date December 25th, 2018 

Published December 22nd, 2018 

Vice is an attempt at a satire of the former Vice President Dick Cheney. Unfortunately, though Dick Cheney is a large enough target for satire, Vice doesn’t have the teeth to make the satire work. Limp jabs at his time running the White House and the straightforward presentation of Cheney’s life, from his time as an alcoholic lineman in Wyoming through his time in the White House and his final heart transplant, the satire is so weak that it never lands a single blow on the former VP.

Christian Bale stars in Vice as Dick Cheney and the transformation is remarkable. Bale, one of the more handsome men in Hollywood, turns seamlessly into Dick Cheney. Putting on weight and undergoing four hours a day of makeup, Bale enhances the look with his voice and manner which brings Cheney to life on screen better than you could imagine. In fact, Bale is so good that he’s part of the reason that the satire of Vice doesn’t land.

Vice proceeds to tell the life of Dick Cheney in a manner that mixes up the timeframes of Cheney’s life. We start with Vice President Cheney on September 11th, after he had been rushed to an underground bunker and took over calling the shots on how the United States responded to the terror attack. The scene reflects rumors of how VP Cheney was usurping Presidential powers and the machinations are vaguely treated as menacing but the movie goes on to, unintentionally, sell the idea that Cheney, being more experienced and prepared for this moment than was President Bush, was right to takeover from Bush in this moment.

Then we flash back to how Dick Cheney got his start. In the early 1960’s Dick Cheney appeared headed nowhere. Cheney was working as a lineman in Wyoming. We see Cheney working for unscrupulous phone company engineers who care little for the employees who have little to no training or safety equipment. Cheney worked and then spent hours in bars getting drunk and getting into fights and getting arrested. 

It isn’t until his wife Lynn (Amy Adams) has to bail him out after a DUI that Cheney’s life is finally turned around. Lynn demands that Dick get cleaned up or she will take their daughter and leave and from there, the film cuts to Washington D.C where Dick is now working as a congressional intern. In the time between when Cheney  was a drunken lineman until he began  working in Congress, Cheney graduated from college and discovered an appreciation for politics.

Cheney’s start in Washington D.C came when he fell in with then Congressman Donald Rumsfeld (Steve Carell). Cheney was Rumsfeld’s intern and it is unexpected to see the Cheney we know today as a toady for someone even more unscrupulous and crude than himself but these scenes aren’t humorous, they are just sort of there. These scenes lay in important details about Cheney’s history during Watergate, his fast rise in the ranks of the Ford Administration, and his machinations within the Reagan White House, but they are the least interesting parts of Vice.

Vice doesn’t pick up strong momentum until Cheney becomes George W. Bush’s choice to be Vice President in 1999. Sam Rockwell plays George W. Bush as the flighty fratboy that the left has always believed him to be. It’s not a bad performance but there are more laughs in Rockwell’s manner, his style, the charming way he plays Bush than from anything Bush and Cheney actually do. The scenes between Bale and Rockwell are rarely funny but they aren't dramatic either, they play off of media perceptions of both men without providing much insight. 

That said, it was during the Bush Administration when Cheney, the character we know from many books and profiles, begins to emerge. We see his moves on the Iraq war, the way he used the law manipulate the country into a place where torture was legal and the film does begin to satirize the Cheney of lore as a power hungry, no-nonsense, bully. Is it funny? Kind of, in the absurdly straight-forward way that McKay frames the scenes and uses history to reflect these as poor decisions, but it is in conflict with Bale's performance as Cheney who doesn't appear to be in the fact that he's supposed to be the villain. Playing Cheney as having strong convictions is not exactly the satire we are expecting. 

It is during the time when Cheney is deciding whether to become Vice President that McKay relies on an odd but surprisingly effective device similar to one that he used in his Academy Award nominated The Big Short. McKay uses fantasy sequences as punchlines to punctuate the life of Dick Cheney. The first is a fake out ending that has Cheney retiring quietly after having been George H.W Bush’s Defense Secretary and leaving politics to become the CEO of Halliburton and leaving politics behind forever. 

This scene only evokes a bit of a chuckle and not a big laugh but I did enjoy seeing the credits begin to roll at the start of what was to be the 3rd act of Cheney’s life. This fantasy moment plays like wish fulfillment for those who despised the Bush-Cheney team and the joke is well-timed with the credits rolling far longer than you expect them to before we cut back to Cheney taking a call from George W. Bush and arranging a meeting regarding the Vice Presidency.

McKay goes back to the well of the fantasy sequence once more not long after this. The film employs a mysterious narrator, Jesse Plemons, who makes brief appearances throughout the movie, setting up a surprisingly effective reveal near the end of the movie. The narrator explains that we can’t really know what Lynn and Dick talked about the night that he decided to become the Vice President so the film goes into a remarkable, and quite funny, Shakespearean sequence in which Bale and Adams banter in the words of Shakespearean villains planning to carve up the world in their image.

For a brief moment Vice achieves its satirical potential. Cheney as the over the top Shakespearean Machiavelli figure is the perfect portrayal of the former VP. This moment combines our perception of Cheney with a touch of the reality. It's the Cheney of leftist lore and reality. Cheney is seen in Vice as a nasty politician with the ability to snake his way through the halls of power, taking power where he can and biding his time until he could turn things to his advantage. Shakespeare offers the perfect comic template to combine the aspects of Cheney that have taken hold in the public imagination.

This, however, is only one scene. It’s quite a funny scene and exceptionally well performed but it can’t make up for what is lacking in Vice which is a stronger through line of humor. The film doesn’t push the envelope beyond these fantasy sequences. It’s fine if the filmmakers are intending for us to make up our own mind about Cheney but I was expecting something more forceful, more directly critical. At the very least, I expected the Darth Vader-esque take on Cheney that holds the public imagination but the film, and especially Christian Bale, fails to push hard enough on that villainous side of our perception rendering the intended satire a toothless quality.

Vice is far too dry for my taste. Cheney is a huge satirical target and Vice doesn’t land a glove on him. George W. Bush gets far more of a roasting in Vice than Cheney does. In the bare minimum of scenes Sam Rockwell gives us an SNL worthy roasting of the former President as the slightly dopey daddy’s boy who was President in name only, a persona that many left leaning audiences will enjoy. It’s more savagely critical than anything Bale does with Chaney though both performances are solid. I just don’t know what the filmmakers, specifically director Adam McKay, is attempting to say about Dick Cheney in Vice.