I Love You, Man: Bromance In Bloom

I don't usually write about movies this new, but I was able to see I Love You, Man with my lady this weekend, so I figured I would write something about it. For those of you that have been living away from the glittering lights of the post/mid-Apatow era, there have been a large upswelling of comedy films that are reminiscent of the classic "animal comedies" of the 70s and 80s, with modern updates. These have been filtering in for the last ten years or so, but have recently reached what seems to be a fever pitch with films like The 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and Funny People, all directed by Judd Apatow. In addition to those fine films, several of his common supporting players have been featured recently in their own films, and both Paul Rudd and Jason Segel have stood out from that crowd lately.

Paul Rudd's been around forever, and you might not have even known it. You remember Clueless, right? Well, he was the stepbrother or something? I dunno, I didn't really like the movie, but I know he was in it. How about 200 Cigarettes? He was in that, and he was pretty good. He kind of looked like Ben Affleck then, but he's way cooler. Plus he was on the last season or so of Friends as Phoebe's love interest. Remember that? That was way good times. Once he appeared in Anchorman, though, things really started getting kick-ass for him, and his career has seen an impressive rise.

You've seen How I Met Your Mother, right? For one, Neil Patrick Harris has really rebranded himself with that role, and I sincerely hope that his role as Doogie Howser is not the first thing people think of when they think of NPH (though it was a decently entertaining show and without it, who knows where he'd be). Also, he was pretty awesome as himself in Harold and Kumar. Wait, what was I talking about? Oh, right. That crazy little show also features Jason Segel as Marshall, but he really got his start in Apatow's television series Freaks and Geeks. Ironically, the supporting characters in that show have really taken off lately, but I haven't really seen that main character kid in much. Which kind of sucks, but hey, whatever. That's Hollywood, man. He also wrote and starred in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, which I was pleasantly surprised to find out is actually pretty awesome. So it's no wonder that when they team up for I Love You, Man (directed by John Hamburg, who directed some episodes of Apatow's Undeclared, as well as the writer on a lot of other decent comedies), it's a match made in a strange, vaguely homoerotic man-romance heaven.

When Peter Klavin, a moderately successful real-estate broker, decides to ask his girlfriend Zooey (played by Rashida Jones) to marry him, he thinks things are pretty boss, broheim. But it turns out, he doesn't really have any friends. He's always been focused on the girls he's been dating, and realizes that his closest male friend may be his gay brother Robbie (Andy Samberg), who already has a best friend (their dad Oswald, played by J.K. Simmons). Spurred by the desire to have a real best man at his wedding, he goes on a strange series of "man-dates," and one of them is exactly as gay as it sounds (Doug, played by Thomas Lennon ends up kissing poor Peter at the end of their "date"). Eventually, through happenstance, Peter meets Sydney Fife at a housewarming (Peter is trying to sell Lou Ferrigno's house), and they become friends. When he starts to spend too much time with Sydney, Zooey feels a little jealous, but it helps them both evaluate their current lifestyle. Eventually, it has a pretty happy ending, which is nice.

Okay, so through the movie, I was expecting one of two things to happen: Sydney was scamming Pete (because Sydney's some sort of financial consultant/investor, and we never see him actually working), or that they would end up becoming totally romantic for each other and Peter would ditch Zooey at the altar for Sydney. I had similar strange reservations when I watched Knocked Up for the first time; I wasn't really sure where the movie was going, and not in a bad way. I don't like it when films are too predictable (which it's easy to avoid when half the dialogue seems to be improvised and largely nonsensical). Thankfully, I Love You, Man is very much not predictable, and it's interesting to see how Peter and Sydney's characters both evolve through the film, due to their contact and friendship.

This movie is also a quote-machine, which is pretty common with films like this, and has been ever since Animal House and/or Caddyshack. The key to pulling off a movie like this is the key players having the ability to think on their feet, stay in character, and react quickly and hilariously to each new and hilarious thing presented to them. I have a love/hate performer/audience member relationship with Jason Segel because he's only two years older than me. I have the same thing for Seth Rogen for similar reasons (though in his case it's worse, because he's only like four months older than me, the talented jerk). However, it's a good thing, because Paul Rudd is something like forty now (which is not a bad thing), and has quite a bit more experience than Segel. They pull off the friendship thing, though, and I can't tell if Rudd's character is supposed to be younger than he really is, or if Segel's is supposed to be older. It's not inconceivable that they would be of disparate ages and be friends, but they both latch onto a love for Rush, which isn't found much these days (as evidenced by Zooey's ignorance of them in general).

This movie is seriously funny. The charm of films like this is the strange little heart buried within the fart jokes and nonsense nicknames and phrases. There's actually kind of a tender love story here, or at least a tender friendship story, which isn't seen all that often. It serves as something of a commentary on the modern convention and idea of masculinity and masculine friendship, in that guy friends only want to talk about sex, drink beer, play poker, and something involving sports. With Sydney and Peter (Jobin and Pistol are their respective nicknames for one another), they commune through music, food, general culture, activity, and mutual respect. Not to sound really kind of weird about it, but it's a sweet movie, man! I feel that I should passively mention cinematic qualities, of which it really has none. However, films like this act more like plays in that the setting, surrounding, camera angles and camera movements don't really need to enhance the action at all. It's dialogue driven, which means we just need to see who's talking and where they are maybe just for a general notion. Like Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, Sydney and Peter share a lot of screen time together.

Watch it because it's funny, watch it because it's sweet, or just watch it so you'll know all the strange quotes and nicknames people might be throwing around in the workplace or in your circle of friends. Plus, Lou Ferrigno puts Jason Segel in a sleeper hold, and it has a lot of subtle cameos (Matt Walsh, Jay Chandresekhar, Rob Huebel, Aziz Ansari and Nick Kroll to name a few) and interesting supporting cast (like Jaime Pressly and John Favreau as Zooey's married friends, or Jane Curtin and J.K. Simmons as Peter's parents, and Jo Lo Truglio as a strange little man with a high voice).

I give it three Jobins out of five, or three migouches out of five. Totes magotes.

Before Sunset: Nine Years Later...

Nine years after Before Sunrise, Richard Linklater reunited with Ethan Hawke, Julie Delpy, and Kim Krizan (all credited for the screenplay this time) to make Before Sunset. The film takes place more or less in real-time, and is set 9 years after the original. It also was released in the wake of Hawke's extremely public celebrity divorce from Uma Thurman, which I'm sure was commented on quite a bit at the time. It was a pretty good movie, and lacking some elements from the first, but bringing some new elements, as well.

The original film had that ambiguous ending, and we get to find out here what happened. It has its own ambiguous ending, though, so it evens out. It has a lot of similarities to the first, especially cinematography, a heavy focus on only two characters and dialogue, and a lack of soundtrack, other than diagetic music from their surroundings. There are only a few real major camera movements, and it sticks primarily to steadicam shots following them around Paris.

The plot is simple: Jesse is now an author, having published a novel based on his encounter with Céline in Vienna. His last stop on his book tour is the Shakespeare and Company bookstore in Paris. When he gets close to the end of his Q&A session, he notices Céline there. They talk, decide to go get coffee, and spend the rest of his time in paris together. He has to catch a flight back to the States at 7:30 that night, and so they only have a few hours together, which takes us through the rest of the movie. They wander around paris, go to a coffee shop, talk at length, catch up on what transpired since Vienna, and discuss marriage, children (Jesse has a wife and a son), religion, politics, his novel, her music, and many other things. It turns out that Jesse went back to Vienna six months later, as they planned. Céline, however, did not; her grandmother passed away a few days before the scheduled meeting, and she couldn't make it. Jesse wrote the book in hopes of seeing Céline again. It ends without a real resolution as well, where we don't know if Jesse will make his plane back to the States, or not.

Jesse is still a romantic cynic, not really believing that his novel's bestseller status means as much as it could. He's dissatisfied with the level of literacy in America, and feels that his novel reflects that. Céline is dissatisfied in her love life, and they both have idealized the one night they spent together. They literally tell each other that they've never been as happy as they have in that one night, and they have each carried the memories of one another throughout the last nine years. Jesse has dreams with Céline in them, where he imagines her in the place of his wife, and he's in conflict with the implications of that idea. He loves his son, but doesn't feel that he can love his wife the way that he should, and mostly because of his night with Céline.

She feels that the night took something away from all of her following experiences, being idealized to the point that it affects the way she experiences her other relationships. She resents the idea that most of her boyfriends get married after they date her (Jesse included), though she isn't certain that she would have wanted to marry them. We see that both characters are just as insecure, uncertain, and confused as they were in their 20s, and their lives are no less complicated with age, as they seemed to predict in the first film.

It's somewhat more somber and less hopeful than the original, though I suppose that's a commentary on the idealism of Generation X in the 1990s, and suddenly find themselves faced with real-world issues and responsibilities in the 2000s. Their chance meeting seems to have been a missed opportunity, and despite his cynicism, Jesse returned to Vienna (owing his father $2,000 in the process) to meet with Céline, only to be alone. This leads him to his marriage, even though he clearly doesn't feel as strongly for her as he does for Céline. She regrets missing their arranged meeting, but was hopeful that he didn't show up either. His novel dredged up those memories for her, and made her irate and frustrated at him as well as herself.

It's a great movie! Check out Before Sunrise and then check out Before Sunset. They're both pretty good, and it's interesting to see the differences in the actors as they've aged as their characters have. I give it four Parisian streets out of five, or four ambiguous endings out of five.

Before Sunrise: A Great Date Movie

I'm going to deviate a little from the current movie schedule by talking about something I actually watched when I was in college. It's Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise, starring Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy, and pretty much nobody else. I'm doing this because I have a Netflix copy of Before Sunset, the sequel released and set nine years after the original (the first one came out in 1995, and the second in 2004), also directed by Linklater and starring Hawke and Delpy.

If you like romantic movies, it's definitely something to check out. If you like good movies, it's worth checking out. I don't normally like these kinds of movies, and I think this movie is pretty awesome. I don't normally like Ethan Hawke all that much (though he's growing on me), and I'd honestly never even heard of Julie Delpy before this. Richard Linklater is pretty fantastic, though, and he is able to present us with one fabulous and strange night in the lives of two virtual strangers.

The plot is simple to minimalistic perfection. Jesse (Hawke) is an American abroad, traveling around briefly to escape his own thoughts, after a painful breakup with his girlfriend (he came to Spain to see her, and they broke up there, hence his aimless wandering). Céline (Delpy) is in a similar situation, returning to Paris for school (university, not ... anything lower) after visiting her Grandmother. They strike up a conversation, and they debark in Vienna for the night before needing to get on separate trains to get to where they're going. They wander the streets of Vienna all night long, talking, getting close, and finding themselves falling in love. Their attraction is constantly at war with the knowledge that they will be parting ways in the morning (hence the title).

Linklater wrote the film with Kim Krizan as well as directing, and the screenplay was nominated for Best Adapted Writing Screenplay for the sequel. Like Linklater's previous movies (notably Slacker), this film is extremely dialogue driven, which is obvious considering there are literally only two characters in the film. It's a testament to the acting powers of these two young stars that the audience is barely conscious of the fact that we're only watching two people have a conversation for two hours. The cinematography also helps, showing them wandering around Vienna, which is a beautiful city (from what we can see on screen).

If you've ever seen Slacker or Dazed and Confused, you know that Richard Linklater specializes in aimless young people, stuck in some sort of transitional state, between youth and adulthood, innocence and responsibility. Jesse is a cynical romantic and seems directionless, but Céline's presence clears the cobwebs and the fog a little bit, and doesn't let him get away with his cynicism. Céline is something of a sweet girl, and was excited by the possibility of getting off the train with Jesse. She reveals later that even though he "convinced" her to go with him, she had decided she would well before then. They share a kiss and long, deep conversations ranging from life, relationships, death, family, education, and religion. The poet David Jewell has a cameo as a bum/poet that says he'll write a poem based on a word of their choosing for money. They pick "milkshake," and they are surprised at how apt and beautiful the poem is.

I just really like this movie, that's pretty much the gist of what I have to say. On the surface, the typical audience will probably enjoy it as a "love that can never be" kind of story, a young love story of hope and regret, blooming emotions that we know will be cut short. Underneath, it's even better, when we really pay attention to the dialogue, what they discuss, and how Linklater follows them around Vienna. They're often framed together, rarely apart, and the implication is that they make love in the park. before they get on the train in the morning, they agree to meet at that very train station in six months. We're never shown whether or not they do, but I can assume based on the plot of the sequel that they do not, and only reunite after nine years serendipitously.

I definitely suggest checking this movie out. Go out and rent it, put it on your Netflix queue, try to catch it on TV (it must be on TV sometimes, but I can't say that I've ever seen it there). I actually own this movie (I bought it for class instead of just renting it), and I may have to buy the sequel after I've seen it this week. I don't know if I can even come up with a clever rating system this time... I give it four and a half angry young men in love, or four and a half hopeful promises out of five.

The Contract: Contractually Obligated to be Kind of Boring

You would think that a movie directed by Bruce Beresford (Double Jeopardy, Driving Miss Daisy) and written by Stephen Katz (who wrote several episodes of The A Team, Knight Rider, and Hunter), starring John Cusack and Morgan Freeman would be pretty interesting. How does it feel to be wrong? Not so good, huh?

Unfortunately, this movie wrote a check that it just couldn't cash. There are vague sub-plots and side-plots that either don't mean anything, make no sense, bring nothing extra to the story, or a combination of all three. It's a basic, generic "normal guy has to sort of fight bad guys when backed into the corner/lifelong assassin sort of turns over a new leaf due to their encounter" type story, with somewhat mediocre performances from the stars. Which is strange and depressing, since they're both typically great performers, able to bring extra nuances to their roles.

Morgan Freeman looks a little bit bad ass most of the time, though.

Here's a quick plot outline for your pleasure: Ray Keene (Cusack) and his son Chris (first-timer Jamie Anderson) have a strained relationship. Ray's wife (whom I believe is unnamed) died from breast cancer, and as a result, Chris is acting out. So they decide they'll go camping/hiking. Meanwhile, Frank Cardeen (Freeman) has assembled his crew of criminals and kill some rich guy's son. Later, Frank is in a random car accident that puts him in the hospital, and leads to his arrest/capture. As the Federal Marshals are driving him through the same woods where Ray and Chris are hiking, Carden's men ambush the Feds, and the car goes over a vague cliff. Ray and Chris find the car in the river, fish out Carden and the remaining Fed, who gives his gun to Ray and gives him a brief rundown of the situation. Then, for the rest of the movie, Ray and Carden and Chris wander about the woods, trying to get Carden back to the Feds without being killed by Carden's men.

It's a fairly simple plot, with no real conflict and seemingly without motivation. For instance, I'm not entirely certain why it's so difficult for them to just get back to the road somewhere, or even somewhere where they can get cell phone signal. Also, they're in the woods for awhile, and I'm not certain why they're going deeper into it. You'd think that they wouldn't be able to track you if you were on an asphalt road, but what do I know? Turns out, Ray's an ex-cop and a current gym teacher, so he's got some skills and some instincts. He's able to fend off the bad guys a few times, and eventually even kills one, which is pretty bad ass, but I almost missed it. A lot of the action is almost random, and maybe I'm just tired, but it was hard to see where things were coming from along the way.

An interesting bit of trivia is that the director writes of this movie in his memoir (Josh Hartnett Definitely Wants To Do This), talking about how difficult the production was, and how little sense the script makes. I don't really know why he would put up his own money to finish production of a movie that he knew didn't make sense. But the point is, it was made, it was released, and someone has to watch it.

There isn't enough to this movie to analyze, let alone over-analyze. There's a barely mentioned and odd side-story about the rich guy whose kid they kill at the beginning, something about stem sell research. By killing the son, they wanted to lure the father out in the open (to the funeral) where they could kill him. Carden has a change of heart somewhere along the movie, presumably over his limited interaction with Ray and his kid. Their father-son bond stronger somehow, too, and evidently, a random hiker and her boyfriend/husband show up somewhere (I literally missed their introduction, I'm not sure where they came from), and the husband/boyfriend is shot by the bad guys. Then the woman follows them around for awhile, and then it looked kind of like at the end, Ray had taken her out on a date to a picnic or some crap with Chris? It seriously makes no sense, and is absolutely strange.

I feel bad not recommending the movie. I would recommend pretty much any other movie directed by Berelsford, and any other movie starring either Cusack and Freeman. Do yourself a favor and watch Driving Miss Daisy, Grosse Pointe Blank, and pretty much any other Morgan Freeman movie if you want to see them doing cool stuff and actually mattering. Unfortunately, this movie isn't really worth the time, and it's disappointing considering the stars.

Don't waste your time and energy on trying to pay attention to the movie. I give it two pointless and nonsensical plotlines out of five, or two useless and meaningless sub-plots out of five.