Avengers: Endgame

Ant-Man and the Wasp

Captain America: Civil War

Ant-Man

Anchorman 2: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

Directed by Adam McKay.

2013. Rated PG-13, 119 minutes.

Cast:

Will Ferrell

Steve Carell

Christina Applegate

Paul Rudd

David Koechner

Meagan Good

James Marsden

Kristen Wiig

Dylan Baker

Fred Willard

Harrison Ford

When we first catch back up to Ron Burgundy (Ferrell), he's co-anchoring the evening news in New York City with his wife Veronica (Applegate) at the dawn of the 1980s. Together, they share a happy marriage which includes their son Walter (Nelson). However, things fall apart instantly when Ron is passed over for a promotion to anchor the nightly national news show in favor of his wife. Soon, he's living in San Francisco, alone, and miserable because he's out of the news game all together. His fortunes change when he's hired by GNN, the first 24 hour news network. Blues Brothers style, he gets the band back together and travels back to the Big Apple for their new gig. Once there, he finds himself not only in competition for viewers with his estranged wife, but also with his own network's prime-time guy Jack Lime (Marsden). This is especially daunting given his 2 AM time slot. Hijinks and shenanigans ensue.

Anchorman 2 bolts out of the starting gates. The first half of the movie is as funny as the original. Part of this is due to how effectively it builds steam during the setup phase. It takes advantage of our excitement for seeing the crew back together by re-introducing the characters in brilliant ways. The most fun re-introduction belongs to Brick Tamland (Carell) and involves his funeral. In fact, Brick is probably the most fun character in the entire film. Also fun is the ambiguous feelings for Ron that Champ Kind (Koechner) displays through his actions. There are also a number of jokes rehashed from the original. However, they work early on. It's remarkable given the fact if you've seen the first movie, you're pretty much guaranteed to remember how funny those bits were.

While the re-introductions of old characters, intros to the new ones, and the occasional rehashing of familiar bits carries the first act, our source of humor changes a bit for act two. We focus squarely on tying those early days of cable to the current state of news reporting. For those of us old enough to remember what it was like back when there were only three major networks and news only came on at six and eleven, this is a sharp satire and truncation of three and a half decades of news dissemination. For younger viewers, it is at least effective at reminding you what things were like before the age of Twitter. The movie also gets mileage out of Ron Burgundy trying to get to know his son, the competition between Burgundy and Jack Lime, and the dynamics of interracial relationships. It does that last thing by putting Burgundy together with Linda Jackson (Good), his boss who happens to be both female and black, two facts that gave Ron and the boys cause for pause. Admittedly, it never really does anything other than use it for an excuse for Burgundy to act like an imbecile. It tries to show the ignorance of stereotypes, but loses something because Ron never gets it.

All the steam we've coasted on for the first two thirds of the movie is lost when the third act starts. Simply put, the whole thing falls apart. The first thing is that all the loose strands come together quickly, but the movie keeps going as if they hadn't. Therefore, the climax is drawn out and unfunny. The effectiveness of re-using jokes from the first movie peters out because they go to the well one too many time. On that last trip, they also bring out way too large a bucket. Not content to merely copy what happened the first time around, the movie crams itself full of what seems like the most cameos in cinematic history. The problem is that the movie assumes that seeing these familiar faces is inherently funny rather than giving them something funny to do. It wants us to go "Ha ha, that's Will Smith, hahahahahaha." However, it only gives us enough material to say "Hey, that's Will Smith." See the difference?

The nosedive taken at the end of the movie makes Anchorman 2 a frustrating experience. We're enjoying ourselves for quite a while. Next thing you know, we're cringing at how bad things have gotten. It flipped from being slyly clever in a way that appears stupid to actually being stupid. Even the cast seems worn out by this time. Our main characters don't have much to do and seem to be going through the motions for what they do have. It's pretty apparent because, like the rest of the movie, they had so much life earlier. They become relegated to the sidelines while a bunch of celebrities hijack the end of the movie for no good reason, at all. Maybe the writers or director Adam McKay didn't know how to end it, or couldn't agree on it. In any event, they did not reach the right conclusion.

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

Admission

Directed by Paul Weitz.

2013. Rated PG-13, 107 minutes.

Cast:

Tina Fey

Paul Rudd

Michael Sheen

Lily Tomlin

Wallace Shawn

Nat Wolff

Gloria Reuben

Travaris Spears

Christopher Evan Welch

Sonya Walger

Leigha Hancock

Portia Nathan (Fey) is an admissions officer at Princeton University. She has had this job for sixteen year. She's also been with her boyfriend Mark (Sheen) for ten years. Her life is wholly predictable, the way she likes it. Things change when she's contacted by John Pressman (Rudd). He is the director of the Quest School, a newly formed school about to have its first graduating class. He asks her to come and speak to them about Princeton. She only agrees because her boss is extremely interested in drumming up enough applications to put them back into the nation's top spot in the category of most applied to school. They have fallen out of first place for the first time in a number of years. Let's pause right here. If this is what they're really worried about at Princeton they're even more out of touch than I thought. Anyhoo, John introduces Portia to the extremely intelligent, but academically challenged Jeremiah (Wolff). Her life is sent spiraling out of control by these events which happen in fairly rapid succession. She also finds herself attracted to John who tells her that Jeremiah might be her son. Finally, Mark leaves Portia for Helen (Walger), the world's foremost authority on Virginia Woolf. Wackiness ensues.

Actually, I should say attempted wackiness ensues. Most of the humor falls completely flat. Tina Fey and Paul Rudd, in my estimation, both function best when they have a lively, possibly insane person to react to. This is how they induce laughter. It's what made Fey so good working with Tracy Morgan, Alec Baldwin, and even Amy Poehler. Rudd is downright brilliant when sharing the screen with Seth Rogen. With just Fey and Rudd together, we have two people playing it straight and waiting for the other to give them something to bring out their own comedic talents. To use a football analogy, it's like two gifted wide-receivers on a team with no quarterback to throw them the ball. Whatever skills they might have are wasted. Occasionally, Rudd tries to step into that role but he is woefully inadequate. It's not that his acting is bad, because it's not. The problem is both he and Fey are too earnest in their portrayals. Remember, that's what they do. Therefore, things meant to be hilarious, such as Rudd delivering a calf or Fey vomiting in front of a frat house come across as misguided, possibly pathetic, and at least a little bit askew, but rarely funny. That's sort of a problem for a comedy. On the other hand, the movie absolutely sizzles during the few short instances Portia's mom Susannah (Tomlin) is on the screen. She has the right kind of energy and plays it just enough over the top for our stars' natural ability to shine through. The movie works similarly whenever Michael Sheen appears, also. Unfortunately, this serves to highlight the shortcomings of our heroes.

With the possibility for laughter greatly diminished, we're forced to adjust mid-stream to watching a drama with a few funny moments. As such, the story is vaguely interesting, but not one with which we're totally enraptured. What's coming is too easily seen to really intrigue us. We know how it's going to work out between our two leads. We also know we're headed for Portia's impassioned plea to Jeremiah into Princeton. To the movie's credit, this is still a very effective scene, played marvelously by Fey. The one curveball in the whole picture is where our heroine ends up. Though it is presented as if she's in a better place than when we started, it doesn't completely feel that way. She seems strangely content with her new-found incompleteness and dependence upon others.

Admission is a film with its heart in the right place. Sadly, it fails on nearly every level in its execution. It tries to strike a comedic tone, but isn't close to being funny enough. The drama isn't dramatic enough to take up the slack. This renders it forgettable. I'm including the people on the screen in that assessment. The only memorable character, Portia's mom and John's adopted son Nelson (Spears), are minor to the production and go long stretches without appearing. The leads are simply giving us more of the same characters they've been playing for much of their careers. The end result of all this is that the movie just drones on and on and on for its entire run time. In other words, its 107 minutes feel like they are multiplying as they slowly pass.

MY SCORE: 4/10

This is 40

Directed by Judd Apatow.

2012. Rated R, 134 minutes.

Cast:

Paul Rudd

Leslie Mann

Megan Fox

Albert Brooks

Jason Segel

John Lithgow

Maude Apatow

Iris Apatow

Charlyne Yi

Melissa McCarthy

Graham Parker

Tatum O’Neal

Whether she admits or not, Debbie (Mann) has just turned 40. Even more disconcerting than her age is that her entire life seems to be falling apart. Nearly every conversation with her husband Pete (Rudd) disintegrates into argument. His fledgling record label is about to go under while her clothing store is treading water, at best. On top of all this, their oldest daughter is in full-blown crazy teen mode, looking for a shouting match with anyone in the house, anytime. By the way, both of this couple’s daughters are played by the directors real life daughters, Maude and Iris Apatow. Much of This is 40 consists of the couple in question dealing with the above problems. They must also contend with a host of periphery issues that do nothing but throw lighter fluid on an already raging fire.

The movie gives us a fairly honest look at the relationship of a long-married couple. Many of their concerns and conversations ring true. It feels like we’re watching a real family, albeit a dysfunctional one on the verge of imploding. Both Mann and Rudd feel natural in their roles and have a nice chemistry with one another. We understand that they care deeply for one another, are entirely too familiar with each other, and are going through a rough patch. We get that they love their kids and would do anything for them, but there are also times when they can’t stand them.

In typical Judd Apatow fashion, there are also plenty of over-the-top moments. A number of these work, giving us some memorable scenes. A few of them involve our two leads. Others feature Albert Brooks as Pete’s forever mooching dad. Later, John Lithgow gets in on the fun as Debbie’s father and even Megan Fox has some unforgettable moments. Granted, hers are due less to her acting than her looks, but you take what you can get. Most indelible is the extended cameo of Melissa McCarthy. She plays the parent of a boy that’s been bothering Pete and Debbie’s older daughter. Her face-to-face with Pete and the ensuing meeting in the principal’s office with both Pete and Debbie present are the high points of the movie.

Also in usual Apatow style, the movie goes on for far too long. It becomes too on the nose in the sense that we begin to feel as if we’re really living every single day with these people, and not in a good way. Things are stretched way too thin as the time between laughs keeps getting bigger while the plot just drones on and on…and on. We’re ready for the conclusion long before we finally get it. I’m no movie director, and have no expertise to speak of when it comes to creating cinema so take the next sentence with a grain of salt. In my viewing experience an hour and forty to forty-five minutes is a good rule of thumb for comedies. Most don’t have enough funny material to sustain more than that. This is 40 is no exception and it runs thirty minutes past that point. Much could be cut, it seems, just from the subplots of supporting players without altering or detracting from the main plot one bit. There are probably fifteen or twenty minutes wasted on superfluous storylines that didn't need to be introduced in the first place. All of this extra time serves to wear us down and makes the final act a chore to sit through. Our hare that bolted out of the starting gates morphs into the tortoise ever so slowly creeping across the finish line.

Wanderlust

Directed by David Wain.

2012. Rated R, 98 minutes.

Cast:

Jennifer Aniston

Paul Rudd

Justin Theroux

Malin Akerman

Kathryn Hahn

Lauren Ambrose

Alan Alda

Joe Lo Truglio

Ken Marino

Jordan Peele

Michaela Watkins

Kerri Kenney

Linda Lavin

After losing his job, George (Rudd) and his wife Linda (Aniston) are forced to move out of their expensive Manhattan “mini loft.” Seeing no other options, the couple packs everything in their car and drives to Atlanta where George will work for his brother. On the way, they decide to stop at what they think is a bed-and-breakfast named Elysium, but turns out to be a 1960s style commune. Their immense enjoyment of the night, combined with the fact that George’s brother Rick (Marino) is relentlessly obnoxious, lead them to try and make a full-blown lifestyle switch. They decide they’ll stay at Elysium for a few weeks then decide whether or not to move there permanently.

The couple in question each struggles with their new surroundings in different ways. Of course, the jokes revolve around this. Specifically, we get riffs on the lack of privacy, drug use, the nudist wine-maker/novelist, and whether or not to engage in free love. It’s all rather hit or miss, mostly miss. Our two leads give stock performances. Neither is bad, just indistinguishable from most of their other roles. The problem is that they both work best when they’re not the primary source of humor. This renders them, and the movie, almost wholly dependent on the supporting cast for comedy while their interactions with each other come across more as drama. Each has a funny moment or two, but not enough to sustain an entire movie.

With that in mind, we must turn our attention to the rest of the ensemble. First, there is Seth, played by a very Charles Manson looking Justin Theroux. He spends the bulk of his screen time referencing dated technology and trying to get into Linda’s pants. He’s mildly amusing on occasion. Next is Kathy (Kenney) and Karen (Hahn). I mention them together because that is almost always how they’re seen. Indeed, they seem to be playing opposite sides of the same coin. One is passive-aggressive while the other is prone to angry outbursts. Again, just a laugh or two from each. Another pair is Rodney (Peele) and Almond (Ambrose), a couple expecting a baby. They’re more consistently funny than those previously mentioned. The actual birth scene, which only includes George not Rodney, is by far the funniest moment in the film. It is also as scary as anything you’re likely to see in a horror flick. Alas, they don’t get as much time on screen as the others.

The standout for me is Alan Alda as Carvin, the wheelchair bound owner of Elysium. He’s not uproariously funny, but his performance is just so natural and infectious. Oh, I almost forgot about Wayne (Lo Truglio), the naked guy. Whether or not you find him funny depends on your tolerance for dick jokes. Another bright spot is Linda’s perpetually drunk sister-in-law Marissa (Watkins). Unlike anyone else in the movie, I think she is hilarious. Unfortunately, she shares all of her scenes with Rick, her Stifler inspired husband who is just annoying as all get out.

As for our plot, it just meanders along while the comfort level of our lovebirds moves in opposite directions. Obviously, they notice this which leads to numerous arguments and eventually brings us to the not-so-funny and sorta action-packed finale. By that point, we’re left to shrug our shoulders and try to decide if we like it or not since it is never good or bad enough for us to figure this out earlier. Then we realize that if there’s a debate about whether we like it, we probably don’t.

MY SCORE: 5/10

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Directed by Stephen Chbosky.

2012. Rated PG-13, 2012.

Cast:

Logan Lerman

Emma Watson

Ezra Miller

Mae Whitman

Paul Rudd

Nina Dobrev

Johnny Simmon

Kate Walsh

Dylan McDermott

Melanie Lynskey

Joan Cusack

Nicholas Braun

Like most kids, Charlie (Lerman) is nervous about starting high school. He might actually be more afraid than most. After all, he couldn’t make any friends in middle school. He survives the first day, invisibly as ever. His only new friend is Mr. Anderson (Rudd), his English teacher who lets him borrow books whenever he likes. Things continue along that path until our hero accidentally finds himself hanging out with The Wallflowers, a tight-knit group of kids that certainly are not part of the in-crowd. He becomes bestest buds with Patrick (Miller), who happens to be carrying on a secret relationship with the school’s most popular athlete, and instantly develops a crush on Patrick’s sister Sam (Watson). Fun with drugs and alcohol, the pursuit of love, and other issues ensue.

In the lead role, Lerman gives us a kid that believably grows in confidence as he becomes comfortable in his own skin. However, he’s never fully comfortable and what confidence he has is fragile, at best. Lerman ably conveys this, makes his character easy to empathize with. He’s someone we want to see breaking out of his shell even though that means indulging in behavior that is less than exemplary.

The cast surrounding our hero is just as good. Each brings their own brand of pain to the screen, continuously proving themselves to be perfect complements to our hero. They’re tortured souls that shelter each other. Their fierce individualism is the facade through which they operate as a group. Whatever they can’t combat with smartassness is doused with the stuff pulled from their parents’ liquor cabinets and viewed hazily through constantly refilling glasses and laughter.

Even within such an idyllic dynamic, problems between them arise. Here, more than anywhere else, us older viewers are thrust back into thedays when there was turbulence amongst our own circle of friends. Younger viewers may be going through this now. We feel bad for Charlie, especially considering the tremendous difficulties this causes for him. As his entire situation crystallizes, our heart breaks for him. The movie does a great job of pacing our awareness, letting us learn a little at a time, just enough to keep us on our toes. The two halves of our protagonist’s life work in tandem to maintain a shroud of mystery around him until he bursts, throwing open the cloak we’ve only been getting peeks beneath.

On the minus side, I’m not sure what to make of Charlie’s parents. They seem to be nice caring people, but a clueless lot even when the obvious punches them in the face. I’m not talking about the big reveal late in the movie, but of the things we see all along – the drinking and the drugs. Even after their son lands in the hospital they just shrug their shoulders at the whole thing even though they know that he’s always been troubled. Now that I think about it, that big reveal only warrants a slightly more vehement reaction. Maybe it’s just the dad in me speaking, but even after our hero’s news is out in the open, they still aren’t as present as they should be.

Regardless of how Charlie is parented. The Perks of Being a Wallflower is an enthralling movie. It draws us into this young man’s life and lets us love it or loathe it as he does. Best of all, we realize that he is a work in progress. His problems aren’t solved in time for the closing credits. He has a lifetime of work ahead of him. This makes him much more real than most guys that save the day and get the girl.

Our Idiot Brother

Directed by Jesse Peretz.

2011. Rated R, 96 minutes.

Cast:

Paul Rudd

Elizabeth Banks

Zooey Deschanel

Emily Mortimer

Hugh Dancy

Rashida Jones

Steve Coogan

Shirley Knight

Ned (Rudd) is a lovable man-child who has three sisters: Miranda (Banks), Natalie (Deschanel) and Liz (Mortimer). True to the movie’s title, he’s arrested within a few minutes of us meeting him for selling marijuana to a uniformed officer. Yes, he sells weed to a cop in uniform. Fast forward to the day he gets released from prison. Not only has his job as an organic farmer vanished, but his girl has replaced him with a guy who could be his clone and kicks him out of the house. She won’t even let him have the dog he absolutely adores. With nowhere else to go, he goes back to mom’s house. Due to circumstances and opportunity he then winds up spending a little time living with each of his sisters. He accidentally wreaks havoc on each of their lives mostly by not knowing when to shut up.

Calling Ned an idiot is putting it mildly. The same applies to calling this movie idiotic. He’s presented as a charming dunce who has apparently never met a stranger. People freely confide in him things they’ve never told anyone else despite only recently meeting him. He can’t help but regurgitate what he’s heard to anyone who bothers to ask. In addition, he accepts any explanation given to him for things he sees with his own eyes as if he’s a three year old. The film merely plays on these things by dropping him into a vicious cycle. He moves in with one of his sisters, repeats something he’s been told or talks about something he’s seen and that sister’s life goes spiraling out of control, not they had any control to begin with. The sister then kicks him out and it’s on to the next house to repeat the process.

Allegedly, Our Idiot Brother is a comedy. However, very little of it is funny. Instead, we just roll our eyes in disbelief at how stupid this man is, wonder if he has some undiagnosed disability. Slogging through the movie is made all the more tedious because we can easily tell what this is all leading to. In case you plan on seeing this I won’t come right out and say it. I will ask you this: what happens in every other movie where a mentally challenged individual is surrounded by self-centered, busy people who think he’s a burden? If you know the answer to this question you’ve no need to bother with Our Idiot Brother.

Dinner for Schmucks

Directed by Jay Roach.
2010. Rated PG-13, 114 minutes.
Cast:
Steve Carell
Paul Rudd
Stephanie Szostak
Zach Galifianakis
Jermaine Clement
Bruce Greenwood
Lucy Punch
Ron Livingston
Larry Wilmore

After one of his co-workers is fired, Tim (Rudd) joins the mad dash to replace the guy in hopes of a raise and a large office on the 7th floor. He comes up with an idea to potentially lure a huge client which makes himself the prime candidate for the promotion. To seal the deal, he not only has to land the client, he has to attend a very special dinner at the boss’ house. What makes it special is that it is the annual “Dinner for Winners.” The “winners” are really people that the execs at the company think are idiots. Each of them must bring one such person that they will all make fun of. At the end of the night, they give a trophy to whoever they deem is the biggest idiot. However, they call him or her the most extraordinary person and never let them in on the joke. Tim’s dilemma is that the girl he’s been practically begging to marry is appalled at the idea and wants him not to go.

To complicate matters, a person that fits the bill to a tee practically falls into his lap. In a case of neither guy paying as much attention as they should, Tim hits Barry (Carell) with his car while Barry is trying to pick up a dead mouse he’s spotted in the street. It turns out he uses the deceased critters to create his artwork. Some of it is original, some are replicas of already famous pieces of art. Think “The Mona Lisa,” only using a rodent instead of a woman. Of course, Tim invites Barry to that special dinner. From that point on, Tim’s life is turned upside down.

A huge chunk of the movie proceeds as follows: Barry does something dumb and/or presumptious with predictably catastrophic results. Tim yells at him. He tries to help fix the problem, but makes it worse. Some of it is funny, a lot of it isn’t. There is also the subplot of Tim’s girl Julie (Szostak) possibly sleeping with over-sexed and eccentric artist Kieran (Clement). Things finally take a turn for the better when we meet Barry’s boss Therman, played brilliantly by Zach Galifianakis. The intense gaze on his face and his cheesy magician’s mannerisms are perfect. Almost all of the funniest scenes in the movie involve him. This includes the “pudding” joke which has a perfectly orchestrated delayed effect.

Galifianakis doesn’t show up until late in the second act. He elevates the movie to the level of watchable, at least while he’s on the screen. He can’t make the ending acceptable, largely because we know what’s coming right from the start. The bigger issue is we can’t quite muster up the sympathy needed to make it work. We can’t because even though Barry is certainly pathetic enough, he’s not likeable enough. The problems he’s caused can’t be attribute to naivete even though that’s what we’re supposed to believe. They’re things that, if I were Tim, would’ve caused me to try and do him bodily harm. In other words, we don’t feel bad when Tim makes him feel bad. We think he deserves it. The effect on the movie is that we don’t really care how it turns out, we just want it to end.

Role Models

2008. Rated R, 99 minutes.
Director: David Wain. Starring Paul Rudd, Seann William Scott, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Bobb'e J. Thompson, Jane Lynch, Ken Jeong, Elizabeth Banks, Bobb'e J. Thompson.

Plot: After accidentally destroying public property, energy drink salesmen and work buddies Danny (Rudd) and Wheeler (Scott) each have to perform 150 hours of community service at "Sturdy Wings." They're each assigned a child whom they will mentor on the weekends. Hijinks and shenanigans ensue.

The Good: As with anything by the Apatow group (yes, I'm counting Rudd among them, he wrote this), there are some scenes and dialogue that are just downright hilarious. The dynamics of relationships between straight males is again ably portrayed. Our two leads fit comfortably into their roles, Rudd as a fairly straight-laced but not particularly happy guy and Scott as yet another incarnation of his Stifler from the American Pie movies. Jane Lynch as former drug addict turned counselor Gayle Sweeney steals every scene in which she appears.

The Bad: Due to the fact they've found a very profitable formula, I've now seen this movie at least half a dozen times. Don't believe me? Let's go through the checklist. At least one slacker who is depressed? Check. A "wild and crazy" dimwitted friend who tries to help him snap out of it? Check. A girl that breaks up with said slacker, tormenting him even further? Check. A budding bromance? Triple check! That's right, we don't just get one bromance, we get three (our two heroes with each other and each with the kid they're mentoring). And nothing unexpected happens in any of them.

The Ugly: When very little Ronnie (Thompson) drops an "F-bomb" right in front of his mom and she, well, essentially does nothing. I was really, really tempted to turn it off at that point.

Recommendation: Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Knocked Up, Pineapple Express, Superbad, Step Brothers. You know if you like these movies or not. It's the same formula repetitively rehashed to fit a different premise. For me, the law of diminishing returns kicked in a few movies ago. So while this, like the others, has some really funny moments, the whole isn't nearly as satisfying as it use to be.

The Opposite View: Claudia Puig, USA Today

What the Internet Says: 7.3/10 on imdb.com (4/21/09), 76% on rottentomatoes.com, 60/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 5.5/10