Showing posts with label John C. Reilly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John C. Reilly. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Step Brothers (2008, A. McKay)



Plot Synopsis (really, this and the poster is all you really need to know):
Two spoiled guys become competitive stepbrothers after their single parents get hitched.



Where's the love? It seems that there is a bit of "too cool for school" backlash out there (internet/friends/media/etc.) against ol' Will Ferrell. I don't get it. Sure, he may be a little overexposed with a movie coming out every season. But he is still an incredibly gifted comic performer and be at least interesting in anything.

I seem to be more a fan of his team-ups with his long-time co-writer/director Adam McKay. I am a huge fan of Anchorman and it's compulsive rewatchability. But I'm more of a fan of how it goes in very absurd places. Couple that with Ferrell's (has to be) improv wordchoice/delivery, and you've got very funny and singular comedy.

I have a feeling I'll be watching this a lot on cable, where it will flourish late-night.

With a "R" rating and the seemingly low-budget, I had a feeling that Step Brothers would be more Anchorman and less Semi-Pro. And I was right; for the first 45 minutes.

For that first 45 minutes, the film is just as surreal in what the characters are saying than anything in Ferrell's already weird repertoire. And it is filthy. One of the reasons the trailer failed a bit is most of the jokes contain crazy dirty language and could not be used in the trailer. You feel like the film can and will say/do anything during these first 45 minutes until the brothers have to "learn to grow up". When the film starts heading towards it's ending, it turns more conventional and loses the outrageous laughs much the same way Wedding Crashers lost its steam during its third act stretch.

What is undeniable is the chemistry between Ferrell and Reilly. One of my favorite moments is right after they've built their bunk-bed. They enthuse about the space they now have and all "the activities" they could do. They really do match each other equally with bizarre and effective word choice humor. They really should do more movies together and I hope they find a role for Reilly in the planned Ron Burgundy sequel.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Sydney / Hard Eight (d: P.T. Anderson, 1996)

Hard Eight is Paul Thomas Anderson's debut film, which was originally titled "Sydney". I was excited to revisit this film recently, due to my growing anticipation for Anderson's new film There Will Be Blood.

It has been at least four years since I've seen the film. Its plot similarities with Melville's Bob Le Flambeur had put me off the film, though right now I can't exactly articulate why... Perhaps I've grown out of the simplicity of plot specifics. Lately, my general rule is: It's not the story, it's how it's told. The two films are told so differently, that my previous hang-up with "Hard Eight" bears no relevance.

This is an incredibly self-assured debut as a writer and a director. Anderson is confident enough in his words and direction of actors that the first fifteen minutes of the film has no action whatsoever, other than two guys talking at a diner then continuing their conversation in a car. Phillip Baker Hall plays an aging man named Sydney who, at the start of the film, befriends a down-on-his-luck-looking young man named John (played by John C. Reilly) sitting penniless outside a diner on the outskirts of Reno. John seems to be in a rough place, having lost all the money he was trying to multiply in order to bury his mother. Sydney makes him an offer: to help John out of his bad situation in exchange for John's help if Sydney would ever need it. John accepts and Sydney takes him back to Reno. It is not clear who Sydney is, or why he does the things he does. Upon arrival in Reno, Sydney shows John a few easy cons; how to fake high activity on a "rate card" in order to get free amenities like a meal, hotel room, etc. This shows Sydney has experience in this area, knows the ins and outs of the casino world. John gets a meal and a room, and then the story goes forward a few years...

Now, I'm just recycling the plot. I shouldn't do that. Retelling the story doesn't really do any justice to how the film plays out. This is not just a movie about grifters or casino players. It is a character piece centering on one man who unbelievably gracious and giving to John and Clementine (Gwyneth Paltrow) for purely unselfish reasons (or so it seems...more on that later). This film seems to be about the "why"; Why does Sydney take John under his wing? Why does Sydney care about Clementine? Why does Sydney not especially like the Jimmy character? What is Sydney's back story to this whole thing? Not many of these questions go answered, and they don't need to be. The story is about more than the character's past, and that is where it shines despite on little kink.

It is partly a story about "Old vs. New"; how the old guard, represented by Sydney, and their time, rules, and way of life is almost up. The new guard, represented by John, Clementine and especially Jimmy (Samuel L. Jackson), are inexperienced, daft, disrespectful, and could use a little teaching/help. This may not be the central theme of the film, as much as it is in the third act of No Country For Old Men, but it is present and haunting Sydney.

The scene in which Sydney gambles against a obnoxious younger gambler (played so watchably by Phil Seymour Hoffman) is a prime example of this theme. Hoffman's loud-mouthed douchebag eggs Sydney on and on and on. He taunts Sydney by calling him "Ol' Timer" over and again, and then winning lucky dice. This suckers Sydney into betting the Hard Eight. He loses. The very next scene he is awoken by the phone call that sets up the final act, which truly shows how much of a guardian angel Sydney is.

This film is also about redemption, in a way, and this is where I feel the story tells us something that doesn't necessarily need to be told. SPOILER. It seems that Sydney is seeking redemption through John, based on something that happened in Atlantic City (to John's father?). Jimmy knows what happened in Atlantic City and tries to use that as something additional to hold over Sydney's head. I'm not sure that we needed to know this information. Are we to expect that Sydney was looking for John before the beginning of the movie, and tracked him down to that diner? I guess it shows that there is always something else lurking beneath the kindness of strangers, but it seems like it is handled a little clumsily in the scene between Jimmy and Sydney. END OF SPOILER

This is a very solid Neo-Noir/Character film and the actors are very good in it. Lead roles for Hall and Reilly back in a time in which both were regulated to a few scenes in other films/television shows, and both make the best of their roles. Hall in the above mentioned Hoffman face-off is great, but especially juicy is the hotel room discovery scene with Paltrow and Reilly.

Anderson really started his run with this film. His commentary tracks on the DVD of this film are chock full of information, history, and process. These tracks and the Boogie Nights DVD commentary tracks set the gold standard for commentary tracks for me back in 1997/8.

It is a shame that:
A) Commentary tracks theses days aren't as juicy, educational, gossipy, and brimming with film love. And,

B) Paul Thomas Anderson is not doing commentary tracks as much these days. No Magnolia. No Punch-Drunk Love.

Raise a drink to the rest of the Anderson-athon, and towards "There Will Be Blood"!!!