Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

There’s a scene in the middle of the indie comedy “Cedar Rapids” that I think captures exactly what this film does so well.   Ed Helms is a naive, straight-arrow insurance salesman from a small-town in Iowa, and he is attending his first big insurance conference in Cedar Rapids.  He nervously befriends John C. Reilly and Anne Heche, who can’t help but take advantage of his naivete and innocence, though mostly in a good-natured way.  It’s Talent Show night at the insurance convention, and Heche signs Helms up to sing a song, unbeknownst to him, until suddenly the spotlight is on him and everyone’s chanting his name.  There’s no getting out of it, so he makes his way forward to the shabby motel stage.

Now, just about every comedy coming out these days would play this scene the same way:  Helms would try to sing something (probably something awful and from the ’80s) and would be completely terrible, but Helms would think he was doing awesome, and ramp it up more nad more, and it would go on and on, and get worse and worse.  Everybody would cringe, and we would laugh at how awkward an d embarassing the whole thing is.  I feel like I’ve seen this scene, or some variation on it, played out a hundred times the last few years.

But wait – that’s now how “Cedar Rapids” plays it.  Sure, Ed Helms sings a terrible and funny song– it’s a version of “O Holy Night” but with insurance-themed lyrics.  But he sings it heart and soul, and well, he pretty much nails it.  The audience explodes with applause, charmed and surprised.   And we, the “real” audience feel the same way.  The scene is funny, for sure, but it’s not lazy, and the laughs feel earned, and the characters likable, and everything has a warm glow about it.  And that’s a good thing, verging on great.

There’s so much about “Cedar Rapids” that feels like a pleasant surprise. Helms essentially plays the same character as in the “Hangover” movies; a straightlaced guy who inexplicably finds himself in wacky, bizarre, and increasingly raunchy situations.  But in “Cedar Rapids,” he really plays it, as opposed to just occupying the physical space as he does in “The Hangover.”   He’s especially good in the first act, before things get all crazy, consistently underplaying scenes where his character takes his first plane ride, befriends a hooker, and suspects the motel clerk of trying to steal his credit card information.  The fact that he resembles a real person makes the scenes funnier, certainly less quotable and possibly less memorable.

And then he meets John C. Reilly, a foul-mouthed blowhard with a secret heart of gold. It’s hard to say he underplays any of his scenes, as everything out of his mouth is foul and he spends a good portion of the movie with a garbage can lid on his head.  But somehow, Reilly makes his character seem somewhat real, instead of the cartoon character he easily could’ve been.  Watching “Cedar Rapids,” I was reminded of how much I liked Reilly before he met Will Ferrell.   If you’ve never seen him in movies like “Hard Eight” and “Criminal,”  you really ought to.   He hasn’t always played obnoxious man-children, and he really is a pretty good actor.

The performances in “Cedar Rapids” are great, and the movie has something to say (rather politely)about hypocrisy and the appearance of evil. Helms really is as straight as they come, and gives a great little speech about the heroism of insurance agents in times of disaster.  But he discovers at the conference that his heroes — church-going family men, all of them– are engaged in low-level corruption and general dishonesty, not to mention discreet philandering and sleeping with prostitutes.  They aren’t the men he thought them to be, and it’s a shattering realization.  Meanwhile Reilly, who, in his own words, “talks too much, drinks too much, weighs to much, and pisses off everyone around him” turns out to be a reliable friend who keeps his secrets and rescues him from one dangerous situation after another.

I enjoyed “Cedar Rapids,” and this comes a week after watching “The Hangover Part II” made me wonder if movie comedies just weren’t my bag. This film reminds me that this is the kind of comedy I like — one that earns its laughs by investing in its characters.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

by Willie Krischke – October 28, 2009

“9″ began life as an award-winning short film in 2005.  It probably should’ve stayed that way. Instead, it feels like a good short film stretched like an old rubber band so that it could be released in theaters and make more money.   Someday we need to stop and ask ourselves why films have to be 70-150 minutes long in order to be considered “feature-length,”  but perhaps today is not that day.

“9″ takes place in a gorgeously visualized, post-apocalyptic world, where the only survivors are 8 inches tall and seem to be made of burlap and clock parts.  The film has a lot of fun with the dilemmas of living in a world that’s 20 sizes too big – a lot of its best bits reminded me of “The Littles” and “The Borrowers,” books I read as a kid. Director Shane Acker clearly loves following these creatures around and seeing how they survive in a pretty terrifying world.  And who can blame him.  It’s pretty fun.

But eventually it becomes necessary to impose a plot structure upon Acker’s beloved creatures, and that’s when the problems start.   Whoever is responsible for the script wrote it in about five minutes, borrowing liberally from the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones, and any other post-apocalyptic and/or adventure movie that was handy.  The main character is called 9, and guess what, there are 8 others, each with a big number on its back, and more caricature than personality.  There’s a glowing talisman, and a gibberish-spouting prophet, and an evil cat-monster.    People need to be rescued, the source needs to be returned to, authoritarian leaders must be defied, etc.   None of it feels at all fresh or original, which is disconcerting, because everything looks so fresh and original.

I guess “9″ is a kids’ movie, and really, kids probably won’t care about hackneyed plot structure, cardboard characters, etc.   I wouldn’t take little children to see “9,” unless they’re exceptionally brave – it’s likely to give them terrible nightmares about cat-monsters– but older kids might enjoy it.   It’s a great-looking movie, but in a year filled with great-looking kid’s movies, it comes up short.

I’d seen this before, but I just bought it so I watched it again.   A few notes: 

Martin Scorsese does the best director’s commentaries of anybody, anywhere.  It’s a real education – not just about film, also about history and sometimes religion – to hear him talk about his movies.  

One of the many great things about “Gangs of New York” is the way it always feels, from the first moments, like there’s an awful lot going on just offscreen.   When the bigger world finally intrudes in the final minutes, as the draft riots overwhelm the gang fights, it makes perfect sense — it feels inevitable.  

Daniel Day-Lewis really is the man.   What a performance — good enough for two movies.   Because really, the biggest problem with last year’s “There Will Be Blood” is that he was pretty much Bill the Butcher all over again.   And look at all the awards it won.  

It’s good, if kind of sad, to see John C. Reilly really act the heck out of a dramatic role here.   Reminds me what a good actor he is, or can be.   Makes me sad that his bread and butter now is stupid comedies alongside Will Ferrell.   He’s better than that, and was for years.   Unless he snaps out of it, he’s going to end up cursing Ferrell on his deathbed.  

Turns out Cameron Diaz can act as well.   Also made me think of her fine performance in “Being John Malkovich.”  Apparently, like John C. Reilly, these days she just choose not to.   Baffling.  

This really was the turning point in DiCaprio’s career.   His performances in “Romeo+Juliet” and “Titanic” were good, no doubt, but it was a little risky to say you liked him at that point, unless you were a fourteen year old girl.   But he’s great here, and gritty, intense, adult.   And then he followed this with “Catch Me If You Can,” “The Aviator,”  and “The Departed,”  and now I can call him one of the best actors of our generation without flinching or ducking.  

Other small parts worth mentioning: Johnny Scirocco (DiCaprio’s right hand man, who betrays him, then gets crucified) is Henry Thomas, ie Elliott from “E.T.”   Someday I’d like to a do a parallel piece on Thomas and Drew Barrymore.   Both are successful adult actors, but they’ve chosen vastly different paths.    Oh, and isn’t that D’Angelo Barksdale from “The Wire”  as Jimmy Spoils?   Sure enough.   Larry Gilliard, Jr. is the actor’s name.   Playing two different kinds of gangster in two different cities — and venues.   Better watch out for typecasting.

By Willie Krischke — originally posted August 15, 2008. 

“Step Brothers” is a Will Ferrell movie, starring Will Ferrell. It has Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly in it. I’m telling you this is a Will Ferrell movie because if you’ve seen one Will Ferrell movie, you’ve seen them all, and thus you ought to know by now whether or not you like Will Ferrell movies, and thus you already know whether or not you’re going to like this movie. I don’t think there’s anything I could write to make a Will Ferrell fan hate this movie, not is there anything I can write to make a Will Ferrell hater enjoy it. Now I’ ve written “Will Ferrell” nine times, just to make sure nobody who likes Will Ferrell (ten) misses the point. So there you go.

That said, there are a few other things that might be said about this movie. They may not fall into traditional “movie review” format, but, as I have already shown, a movie like this does not benefit or suffer from a traditional movie review.

1. “Step Brothers” functions as a parody of Judd Apatow movies, most notably “Knocked Up.” But that movie is a parody of twentysomething men who act like adolescents. So this is a parody of a parody. And that phenomenally, catastrophically doesn’t work. And the people who made “Step Brothers” are the same people who made “Knocked Up,” and they seem to know it doesn’t work. Seth Rogen actually appears about halfway through the movie, to spell out why it doesn’t work. Reilly and Ferrell show up for a job interview at a sporting goods store wearing tuxedoes. Rogen thinks the tuxedoes are supposed to be funny, ironic, sarcastic; a commentary on life or jobs, or something. Then John C. Reilly farts. For a really long time. And Rogen thinks maybe the tuxedoes aren’t funny and sarcastic, maybe they’re just stupid and naive. So he tells the “boys” to get lost. Not just out of his store, but out of his entire movie universe, where one can be an overgrown adolescent and still intelligent, sarcastic, and ironic. Because all these boys can do is…fart.

2. John C. Reilly used to have a soul. He used to show up in movies like “The Anniversary Party,” “Gangs of New York,” “Chicago,” and “The Hours,” and regularly steal his scenes – not by overacting, but by underacting. Then he met Will Ferrell. Now he plays an overgrown, idiot man-child in movies like “Talladega Nights,” “Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story,” and now this one. Now he plays every scene to the rafters. I’m sure he’s making more money than ever. John C. Reilly, I dub thee Faust. Prove me wrong, I beg you.

3. Probably the funniest, most interesting part of “Step Brothers” is Ferrell’s brother, played by Adam Scott. (Certainly the funniest scene involves his perfect Family of Four™ singing a cappella in the car.) Scott’s performance is sharp and polished, like Reilly’s autographed samurai sword, and I kept wishing he’d show up in more scenes. Scott is much more successful than his older brother; he’s a VP of a helicopter company and rolling in dough. But it becomes apparent that Derek isn’t really any more grown up than Ferrell; he’s just found a socially acceptable, financially lucrative way to act like an adolescent.

4. Which raises a deeper issue. If Ferrell and Reilly can’t grow up, and Scott can’t grow up, and their father Richard Jenkins just spends all his time dreaming about sailing around the world, then where are the grownups? Is “Step Brothers” trying to make a statement about men in our society, or about the way our society treats men and what it expects from them? Do modern males have two choices: either give up and embrace a lifeless, joyless existence, or find a socially acceptable, financially lucrative way to continue to act like a child? Is that why I write movie reviews? I may be stretching to say that “Step Brothers” actually asks these questions –it’s more interested in collapsing bunk beds and licking dog poo – but perhaps you’ll ask them yourself, as I did, when you get bored of the fart jokes.

Recommended

• if you like Will Ferrell movies.
• If you ever thought it might be funny to watch a bunk bed collapse on top of a grown man.
• If fart jokes make you laugh—every time.
  

Not Recommended

• if you don’t like Will Ferrell movies.
• If you’re fed up with your 30 year old underachieving son living in your basement and insisting on “following his dream.”