Forgetting Sarah Marshall, 5/5

Rated R. Click here to see the trailer.

Here are seven reasons why Forgetting Sarah Marshall is easily my favorite movie of the year so far:

1. A Cake song plays over the opening credits.
2. Billy Baldwin pretends to be David Caruso from CSI: Miami
3. It co-stars Jack McBrayer (Kenneth from 30 Rock).
4. There is a shot of Japanese tourists posing with silverware.
5. The main character and I have the same model MacBook.
6. Jonah Hill is funny… for once. The same goes for Bill Heder.
7. The main character is writing a rock opera… for puppets… about Dracula.

Jason Segel is Peter, a loveable sad sack Everyman who composes the "dark, ominous tones" for a crime drama starring his smokin’ hot girlfriend, Sarah Marshall, played by Kristen Bell. She dumps him while he is… um… in a very vulnerable state and to get over her, he jets off to Hawaii where nothing can remind him of the past.

Of course Sarah shows up with her new rocker beau in tow, Aldous Snow, played by a very funny Russell Brand. This makes Jason more than a little bit weepy, but things begin to look up for him as the hotel staff takes him under their wing, especially Mila Kunis’ Rachel (Rolling Stone calls her "illegally adorable"). Mahalo!

The plot sounds a little cliché and you can more or less figure out where things are going to end, but Segel’s script is so darn tight and consistently funny, you really don’t care. That’s the best praise I can give a movie: it’s consistent. I laughed out loud probably ten times at jokes from ten different characters.

If you want to be a jerk about it, it does feel a tad too long and the Paul Rudd and Jonah Hill characters aren't necessary. However, one should never cut Paul Rudd from a comedy, no matter how long it is and if Jonah Hill is actually being funny, I say let 'im in. Everyone here is funny, that greatly helps the aforementioned consistency. I hated Jason Segel’s slimeball in Knocked Up, but in this movie he’s a funny, relatable guy. His goofy normalness wins you over. Even Sarah's new boyfriend, the lothario rocker from the UK is likable and very, very funny.

It's rated R for a reason. The only things that keeps the movie from being among the upper reaches of my all-time favorites list are two instances of male nudity that are inexplicably gratuitous and absolutely unnecessary (there are also a few very brief bits of female nudity). The scenes in question are so brief and oddly edited that I have no idea why they were included. They’re not funny and they aren’t sexy and that’s just sad.

I don't recall all that much offensive language, but that's not to say it's not there. If you're ready and willing to cover your eyes for a few seconds, Forgetting Sarah Marshall is a can't miss.

Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay 2/5

Rated R. Click here to view the trailer.

Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle was one of my favorite movies of 2004, even if it was one of the dumbest. Kal Penn and John Cho have teamed up to bring us a sequel but this one just couldn’t give me the high that the first stoner comedy did.

The action in Escape from Guantanamo Bay picks up mere seconds after White Castle left off. Our dynamic duo are on their way to Amsterdam to pursue the girl of Harold’s dreams. Due to some racism and some truly idiotic actions on the part of Kumar, the pair are arrested and sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as terrorists (“North Korea and Al Qaeda working together!”). They eventually escape (along with some real terrorists, but never mind that) and must work their way to Texas to bust up the wedding of Kumar’s old flame and obtain legal help from her federal official fiancé, with homeland security official (Rob Corddry) bumbling along behind them.

It’s more or less the same movie as its predecessor. Both movies are buddy travel comedies and both involved significant scatological humor. The jokes were funny the first time around, but this time it just seems like the writers weren’t trying. Both movies involved more or less the same stopovers too… a party, a stay at a scary redneck’s house with his hot wife, and of course a glorious extended cameo Neil Patrick Harris.

Ah, NPH. He was truly the highlight of the first Harold and Kumar flick and was well on his way to shining bright in this one when… well, something goes wrong at a whorehouse (isn’t that always the case?). I’ll leave it at that.

The movie tries to get political with its “racially charged, unjustly imprisoned” plot line, but it’s too stupid to be taken seriously. I certainly wouldn’t have been the jerk that Rob Corddry’s character is, but I definitely would have arrested them and locked down the airport given their behavior and the evidence in their possession (Although he does have a great line while interrogating Harold: "Hey! Zip it, Hello Kitty!"). The movie’s George W. Bush impersonator could have at least fired off of some liberal shots, but his impression of the president is so poor it’s kills any humor that might have grown from it.

Still, Kal Penn and John Cho make a great team. I doubt there will be a Harold and Kumar III, but I'll probably go ahead and watch anything they do together.

Ultimately, given the choice of Guantanamo Bay and White Castle, I’ll pick White Castle every time.

Smart People, 3/5

Rated R. Click here to view the trailer.

Smart People could just as easily be named Dysfunctional People. While the former is probably more marketable (and perhaps more ironic), the latter is probably more accurate.

The dysfunctional father, Lawrence (played by a severely bearded Dennis Quaid), is a jerk of an English professor who is shopping a book with the gentle title, You Can’t Read. His dysfunctional daughter, Vanessa (Ellen Page), is a pot-smoking uber-Republican who gets a 1600 on her SATs and develops an inexplicable crush on her dysfunctional adopted uncle (the fun as always Thomas Haden Church) and his dysfunctional haircut.

Why are they dysfunctional? It’s partly because Lawrence’s wife died several years ago, but mostly it’s because it makes for a fun movie and give them an opportunity to Grow. It also allows Sarah Jessica Parker, a doctor/former student of Lawrence’s, to meet cute and develop a dysfunctional romance that more or less gave me the willies. Does Vanessa approve of her father’s relationship with a former student? I’ll give you three guesses.

The actors are mostly superb, but it’s still just not quite enough rescue the movie for me. Quaid’s gravely voice, exhausted eyes, and screw you way of walking (and parking) through life let you know there is some serious heartbreak in his life. Thomas Hayden Church is at least as good as he was in Sideways and Ellen Page is, well, amazing.

But, like I said, it just wasn’t quite enough for me. Sarah Jessica Parker’s character was very flat and uninteresting, while the movie never succeeded in setting a tone. It’s funny, but not hilarious. I’m not even sure what genre you can put this movie in. it certainly isn’t a comedy in the traditional sense. It’s a little like Sideways (they have the same producer), but it isn’t near as sharp at that 2005 film. I was never sure how I was supposed to feel and I’m pretty sure the screenwriters were just tired when they came up with the ending. Maybe that’s appropriate. Maybe a movie about dysfunctional people should be dysfunctional.

Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who!, 3/5

Rated G. Click here to view the trailer.

Disclosure: I have never read the original Horton Hears a Who!

It’s impossible to mention the movie Titanic without bringing up its record breaking box-office take. After reading other reviews, I must conclude it is equally impossible to mention this new adaptation of Dr. Seuss’s work without mentioning that “it is significantly better than previous attempts such as the live-action films How the Grinch Stole Christmas and The Cat in the Hat… not that that’s saying much.”

No, it’s not saying much, but it’s true. Dr. Seuss’s Horton Hears a Who! isn’t on par with the 1966 cartoon Grinch nor is it even as good as any of the Shrek trio. But it is OK and that’s saying something.

Horton (voiced by Jim Carrey), is a spastic elephant living in the Technicolor Jungle of Nool. He fights the 88-minute battle of his life to save a tiny speck on a “clover” (although I’d contend it’s a dandelion, not a clover) that he believes is home to a tiny civilization known as Whoville. Meanwhile, a purple dictatorial neo-con kangaroo (voiced by Carol Burnett), labels Horton a trouble maker and mal-content and assigns a Slavic vulture to get rid of the clover and/or Horton.

Back in Whoville, the Mayor (voiced by Steve Carrell) is the lone voice and evidence that the microscopic town exists. He fights a parallel who-battle to Horton’s as he tries to convince the blissfully who-ignorant Whos that their who-world is in who-danger. There’s a shoe-horned-in subplot about the Mayor and his punk little emo son, but who (get it? Who?) gives a rip?

It’s a wacky plot and it has promise. It’s a shame that it just bounces around without ever pulling the funny trigger. In fact: here are the three sole funny items in the film: 1) an out-of-left-field Henry Kissinger shout out (it's so over kids' heads that I've given credit for it); 2) Horton’s talented “ear puppets; and 3) a spot-on who-anime parody. Largely, it just falls flat. The producers most likely knew this and that’s why they tossed tiny roles to Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill, hoping they’d up the movie’s sex appeal. It doesn’t and their roles are barely worth mentioning. NOTE TO FILMMAKERS: You don’t have to force your movies through a Judd Apatow filter to make them funny.

I think the true problem is that people try too hard to Seuss-ify their movies. Yeah, Green Eggs and Ham was trippy, but it was also subdued in its own quirky way. The remakes of The Cat and Hat and How the Grinch Stole Christmas, and Horton for that matter, aren't subdued.

Those who would remake classics would be wise to ask themselves what they can add to the original. If the answer is "add a Canadian comic's voice," they need to go back to the drawing board.

Starting with Jim Carey, the whole movie seems miscast. Carey doesn't work as an elephant and Carrell doesn't work as His Who-ness, the mayor. As I said before Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill have tiny roles and are unimpressive. Will Arnett DOES work as Vlad the vulture, but that's a fluke.

Theme-wise, I picked up on a quiet pro-life theme, as Horton repeats his mantra, “a person’s a person, no matter how small.” This might be intentional, especially given the pro-life trend of certain high-profile movies. The other possible theme isn’t near as conservative, in that there’s a slight pro-global warming message. The Whos choose to remain ignorant of their impending doom, despite ample evidence. I may be reading too much into it, but that’s just what I picked up on. I would point out that even though their doom might have been legitimate, it was not Who-caused :-). In reality, Seuss's original work was probably more concerned with McCarthyism, free speech and freedom of inquiry than arguing against abortions or arguing that global warning is a genuine threat.

Just as it’s impossible to not mention The Cat in the Hat and How the Grinch Stole Christmas as one begins a Horton review, it’s also impossible to end it without recommending the viewer stick with the old-school animated shorts of The Grinch, Green Eggs and Ham, The Lorax, or, my personal favorite, The Star-Bellied Sneetches. I’ll one-up those recommendations and tell
you to stick to Theodor S. Giesel’s printed works.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, 3/5

A Rough Cut's first exclusive, pre-release movie review!

Rated PG. Click here to view the trailer. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed opens nationwide April 18.

I tried not to be star-struck, but it was hard not to watch Ben Stein watching himself during the pre-release screening of his new documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. I sat behind Missouri’s first lady, with the governor to her right and Ben (he and I are on a first name basis now) sitting next to him. I could hear him chuckle at his own one-liners and listened intently has he pointed out the nuances of several scenes to governor. At one point, he pulled out a telescoping back scratcher and took care of an itch. That's not really germane to the movie review, but the kind of fact that just needs sharing.

Stein’s incredibly dull and (yet infinitely Jewy and entertaining) monotone droll narrates the documentary, in which he explores the death grip Darwinian evolution has on the scientific intelligista. It’s certainly not a Christian movie and it doesn’t argue that the Judeo-Christian God created the earth in six days then rested on the seventh. It does however make the Christian (or Darwin doubter) feel much more confident in the scientific foundation of Intelligent Design (the idea that life is so complex, it is impossible that it occurred randomly and is best explained by an intelligent Creator).

Heck, why not let Ben speak for himself:

We began working on this movie because were concerned that Darwinism – which is a beyond-words brilliant theory – was being taught as the only scientific explanation for creation, for development of life, for the development from inorganic to organic matter, even into astronomy, physics and thermodynamics. We have been very troubled by this strangle hold Darwinism has on academic pursuits and by the fact that if you raise the slightest question about Darwinism, you can get fired, lose you job, grants and website. This didn’t seem to us to be constant with the doctrines of free speech and freedom of inquiry that are basic to the functioning of the United States of America. So many people did not give their lives so that one certain dogma could have a stranglehold on academic pursuits while everything else was expelled.

Stein is just about the perfect person to star in a movie like this. He’s funny (see his work in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, the Clear Eyes commercials), he’s smart (Win Ben Stein’s Money, he taught law at Pepperdine University) and he’s a conservative (he’s a former Nixon speech writer). Most of all he’s likable and he doesn’t attack the Darwinian scientists he interviews, nor does he suck up to the ID proponents.

Stein uses a motif of the Berlin Wall throughout the movie to illustrate that Darwinian scientists have walled themselves in, refusing to hear any alternatives to their god, evolution. In fact, the movie suggests Darwinism is their religion even as it suggests Intelligent Design is in fact a science.

As a junior at a conservative Christian liberal arts university, one of my required courses focused largely on ID. Even though I whole heartedly agree with it’s premise, I must admit I found it to be scientifically lacking and unconvincing to those who didn’t already have religious faith as background (although I did think secular professors should emphasize that evolution is just a theory). The highest praise I can give Expelled is that it convinced me otherwise. I am now thoroughly convinced ID is legitimate science and am excited with the research possibilities it holds.

Expelled is the anti-Inherit the Wind - it’s not fictional and it’s intentionally funny - and Ben Stein the anti-Michael Moore - he’s not over bearing, not overweight and fully believes in your right to disagree with him (although like Moore, no one would dare call Stein a fashion trend setter). It's good movie and I recommend it heartily, but it is still a documentary.

However, Stein does hope to set a trend in preserving academic inquiry. It sounds a little melodramatic, but refusing to hear opposing idea can lead to some pretty dire consequences. As Stein asks at the close of the movie: “Freedom of inquiry is the kind of freedom that makes this country great. Is anyone left to fight this battle? Anyone? Anyone?”