The State is important to me. This MTV comedy show from the dawn of the 90s is, in my mind,one of the funniest programs ever presented on TV. From Doug, to the open letter to Chelsea Clinton, to Porcupine Racetrack, the show had a voice all its own. It was not Saturday Night Live and that was a good thing. The cast of The State did not do impressions of politicians or celebrities (at least not good ones), they didn’t even appear to be polished performers. They were like you and your friends if you and your friends were about a thousand times funnier.
The State in its original incarnation is long gone. Its creators and performers continue to collaborate on movies and television with varying degrees of success (oddly their most lucrative endeavors are the scripts for broad family fare like The Pacifier and Night at the Museum penned by cast members Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon). In 2003 many of the Staties got together and created Reno 911, a faux COPS that centers around the deputies of a faux Reno Sheriff department.
Initially I was unsure about Reno 911 as a TV show. It seemed a little blunt; the jokes were all a little easy. After repeated viewings, I came to realize the secret of the show’s genius. The set ups and the gags are not where the true humor of the lies (these are often on the level of what can be found on Mad TV or Blue Collar Comedy Hour) but rather in the characters. Each cast member is utterly committed to her or his uproariously lovable/pathetic character. Over the course of the shows several seasons the actors have grown more comfortable with their on screen alter egos and this is where things become truly hilarious. In short, it is not funny that the deputies bungle an arrest (because this happens multiple times an episode) but the character’s responses, reactions, and quips are funny, really funny.
The successes of Reno 911 have been parlayed into a feature film. The finished product, Reno 911:Miami forsakes almost all of what is great about the show. There seems to be an attempt to appeal to viewers who have never seen the television incarnation(whole segments of the film are lifted from early episodes of the program) and this makes it impossible for the cast members to shine. There is also an attempt to make the movie larger than the TV show (nudity, big time celebrity cameos) which just distracts. When the Rock appears on screen his only purpose is to make it seem impressive that the filmmakers were able to get the Rock to appear in their movie.
There are several times where the cast members are able to rise above the misinformed structure of the film. A sex scene between Deputies Weigel and Dangle (Kerri Kenney and Lennon) sticks out as one of the few scenes that actually made good use of the R-rated format. But the film as a whole is uneven. Whole characters (most notably Cedric Yarbough’s Deputy Jones who is a highlight of the show) seem to be forgotten or underdeveloped.
I hope this is not the last we see of the Reno Sheriff department. It would be a pretty lame send off.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
Zodiac-Two reviews in one
Zodiac is quite an impressive movie for so early in the year. As a result I have included two reviews. The first is by my colleague Peggy K. The one that follws is by me. I think they tackle the film from different angles. Enjoy.
N@
Zodiac
I have to start by admitting that I am a true crime enthusiast/fanatic. From the time I heard this movie was being made I couldn't wait for it to come out.
The movie is based on books by Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist at the San Francisco Chronicle at the time "Zodiac" killed several people in that area, beginning in the late '60's. The killer sent taunting letters to the local newspapers, which is how Graysmith got involved, and ultimately obsessed, with the case. His first book, Zodiac written in the mid-1980's details the crimes, the investigation and possible suspects. The Zodiac killer was never "caught" and charged with the crimes, though most of those involved believe they know his identity. (He died in the early 1990's).
In his more recent book, Zodiac Unmasked, Graysmith names that suspect, Arthur Leigh Allen, and writes chronologically of the events and the investigation that spanned many years. This book is the basis for the movie.
Okay, back to the movie. The cast is excellent . Everyone looks the part - hair and clothes - of the 60's and 70's, except maybe the main character. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Robert Graysmith. He probably looks a little more cool in the movie than he actually did in the 60's, but hey, he's the star. Although the actual crimes are briefly touched upon, the real message is the impact on the lives of those closely involved in trying to catch the killer, (not to mention the rest of the Bay Area at the time). At one point, when Graysmith's family life has pretty much fallen apart because of his total absorption in the case, (and remember, he's a cartoonist at the newspaper, not a cop), his wife asks him - why? His answer is that he "has to know who did this". And you totally believe and understand his answer.
This movie is almost 3 hours long, and I don't remember any other 3 hour movies that were worth it. Wait - maybe I don't remember any other 3 hour movies at all!!
When it ended, I couldn't believe that much time had passed.
My husband and daughter also loved the movie; they are not crime afficionados like me.
Peggy K.
Zodiac
David Fincher reinvented the serial killer movie in 1995 with Seven. That film took a stale genre (think Copycat) and made a cool movie that was also utterly scary. With Zodiac, he has reentered the realm of serial killers and creates a movie that is even more interesting.
Zodiac is actually two films about the real life Zodiac Killer (this is why the film’s 157 minute running time is needed). One film is a polished thriller complete with gruesome murders (you will have a real sense of what being stabbed must feel like after one scene), thrilling chases, and coincidental plot points. In this movie, the cops have witty banter about animal crackers and there are more than a couple scenes full of sheer terror.
The second film tackles the subject matter as it actually happened. The real Zodiac case dragged on for years, mired by issues of jurisdiction and protocol that are rarely seen in Hollywood depictions of the police. These cops (and reporters who help them) chase more scraps of paper, archived documents, and “telefaxes” (which were the very latest in crime fighting technology at the time) than they do actual perps. This story has no clear arc; like real life it has fits and spurts and a somewhat disappointing conclusion.
These two films intertwine and compete for the viewers attention. Both films collide in a meta- scene where the characters go to see a film version of their lives, all inside of another movie about their lives. Inspector David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) stands defeated in front of a movie poster of an exultant Dirty Harry. This image presents the viewer with a question: Which movie would you rather watch? The cool, moody thriller or the procedural real life story?
I am embarrassed to say that I became so enthralled in the scary elements of the movie that I secretly hoped Fincher would turn away from the facts of the case and give us what he and only a handful of other directors can, an actual horror movie. In the end he is able to raise the real story to a level that is more interesting and engrossing, which shows just how talented he is as a director.
N@
Zodiac
I have to start by admitting that I am a true crime enthusiast/fanatic. From the time I heard this movie was being made I couldn't wait for it to come out.
The movie is based on books by Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist at the San Francisco Chronicle at the time "Zodiac" killed several people in that area, beginning in the late '60's. The killer sent taunting letters to the local newspapers, which is how Graysmith got involved, and ultimately obsessed, with the case. His first book, Zodiac written in the mid-1980's details the crimes, the investigation and possible suspects. The Zodiac killer was never "caught" and charged with the crimes, though most of those involved believe they know his identity. (He died in the early 1990's).
In his more recent book, Zodiac Unmasked, Graysmith names that suspect, Arthur Leigh Allen, and writes chronologically of the events and the investigation that spanned many years. This book is the basis for the movie.
Okay, back to the movie. The cast is excellent . Everyone looks the part - hair and clothes - of the 60's and 70's, except maybe the main character. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Robert Graysmith. He probably looks a little more cool in the movie than he actually did in the 60's, but hey, he's the star. Although the actual crimes are briefly touched upon, the real message is the impact on the lives of those closely involved in trying to catch the killer, (not to mention the rest of the Bay Area at the time). At one point, when Graysmith's family life has pretty much fallen apart because of his total absorption in the case, (and remember, he's a cartoonist at the newspaper, not a cop), his wife asks him - why? His answer is that he "has to know who did this". And you totally believe and understand his answer.
This movie is almost 3 hours long, and I don't remember any other 3 hour movies that were worth it. Wait - maybe I don't remember any other 3 hour movies at all!!
When it ended, I couldn't believe that much time had passed.
My husband and daughter also loved the movie; they are not crime afficionados like me.
Peggy K.
Zodiac
David Fincher reinvented the serial killer movie in 1995 with Seven. That film took a stale genre (think Copycat) and made a cool movie that was also utterly scary. With Zodiac, he has reentered the realm of serial killers and creates a movie that is even more interesting.
Zodiac is actually two films about the real life Zodiac Killer (this is why the film’s 157 minute running time is needed). One film is a polished thriller complete with gruesome murders (you will have a real sense of what being stabbed must feel like after one scene), thrilling chases, and coincidental plot points. In this movie, the cops have witty banter about animal crackers and there are more than a couple scenes full of sheer terror.
The second film tackles the subject matter as it actually happened. The real Zodiac case dragged on for years, mired by issues of jurisdiction and protocol that are rarely seen in Hollywood depictions of the police. These cops (and reporters who help them) chase more scraps of paper, archived documents, and “telefaxes” (which were the very latest in crime fighting technology at the time) than they do actual perps. This story has no clear arc; like real life it has fits and spurts and a somewhat disappointing conclusion.
These two films intertwine and compete for the viewers attention. Both films collide in a meta- scene where the characters go to see a film version of their lives, all inside of another movie about their lives. Inspector David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) stands defeated in front of a movie poster of an exultant Dirty Harry. This image presents the viewer with a question: Which movie would you rather watch? The cool, moody thriller or the procedural real life story?
I am embarrassed to say that I became so enthralled in the scary elements of the movie that I secretly hoped Fincher would turn away from the facts of the case and give us what he and only a handful of other directors can, an actual horror movie. In the end he is able to raise the real story to a level that is more interesting and engrossing, which shows just how talented he is as a director.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Matters of Length
I watched Thank You for Smoking on Monday night. The film's biting wit and perect "just over the top feel" should be commended. However, the element of this film for which I have the most respect is its length. In a tidy hour and 38 minutes the film is able to craft a fine story as well as give us something to talk and think about. After sitting through all of the award season movies, this feat seems like a marvel. Making a longer film does not mean you are making a better film. I don't have to take your work more seriously because the studio let you run past 120 minutes.
I must confess that there are some movies that need and deserve the time to develop. But for every Boogie Nights there are oodles of movies like What Women Want (the horrendous Mel Gibson-Helen Hunt picture where Mel hears what women are thinking for an unbelievable 126 minutes). More importantly, great films can be brief. Let's not forget that Alvy was able to meet, fall for, lose, and try to reconcile with Annie Hall all in an hour and 33 minutes, and still have time to bring out Marshall McLuhan for a cameo.
Like the films that I am praising I will be brief. Let us know some of your favorite short movies as well as those that earn the right to be long.
I must confess that there are some movies that need and deserve the time to develop. But for every Boogie Nights there are oodles of movies like What Women Want (the horrendous Mel Gibson-Helen Hunt picture where Mel hears what women are thinking for an unbelievable 126 minutes). More importantly, great films can be brief. Let's not forget that Alvy was able to meet, fall for, lose, and try to reconcile with Annie Hall all in an hour and 33 minutes, and still have time to bring out Marshall McLuhan for a cameo.
Like the films that I am praising I will be brief. Let us know some of your favorite short movies as well as those that earn the right to be long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)