Considering the amount of controversy and vitriol my first review generated two weeks ago, it’s fitting to follow up with a movie that most of the free world has yet to see. Considering it was released in theaters, on DVD and as part of HDNet movies all on the same day, it’s not as though the studio didn’t try.
The movie is Diggers, a small ensemble piece that’s been making the film festival rounds and is really worth your time if you have a chance to pick it up.
The movie centers around four friends (Paul Rudd, Ken Marino, Ron Eldard and Josh Hamilton) scraping to get by in 1976 Long Island. Like their fathers and their fathers before them, they’re clam diggers. The external conflict comes from a large conglomerate that is restricting the waters where the best catches can be made, muscling out the small-time fishermen. In an act of self-preservation, some in the community sell out. Our four protagonists, however, stay true to their small-town way of life.
On paper, this probably doesn’t sound like much to get excited over. But Diggers does an exceptional job of creating a very particular sense of time and place. The bars are dimly lit and gritty, the fishermen’s boats cobbled together out of what looks like scrap lumber. Everyone carries the deshevled look of blue collar wear and tear. Although everyone is economically depressed, fed up with government and big business, wrestling with personal problems and deep emotional loss – you never really get the sense that these people are upset about it because of the relationships they’ve forged and their shared identity as a community.
I know, I know. This sounds lofty in contrast to the coming tidal wave of big blockbusters, but I encourage you to check this film out. Paul Rudd – undervalued in nearly every movie he’s in – turns in a stellar performance as Hunt. Having recently lost his father, Paul struggles to find direction in the face of impending change. A “silent flirtation” with a city girl on vacation (Lauren Ambrose) and his passing interest in photography might offer a way out. In this respect, the screenplay falters because it isn’t anything you haven’t seen in a dozen other movies. But what Diggers accomplishes revolves less around the decision Hunt makes regarding his future and more around how the singular event of his fathers death ripples through the lives of the people around him.
As the only father in the group, Ken Marino delivers a hilarious and complex portrait of responsibility as someone emotionally tethered to his integrity but equally combustive when dealing with his kids. The stress of his home life and financial situation leads him to swear in front his kids and have yelling matches with his wife (Sarah Paulson). But just as quick as he is with his temper, he is as quick to squash his kids using those same swears around him and every cross word with his wife is met with a loving smile. Swallowing his pride in the face of a new baby on the way, he applies for a job with the the looming conglomerate and it’s heart-wrenching to watch.
Marino’s script is all the more surprising when you consider he was once a member of the MTV sketch comedy group The State. Going into the movie with that knowledge might color your perspective. While there are funny moments, make no mistake – this is not a comedy. Again, a surprise considering this guy was on TV a few years ago as Louie – the guy who “wants to dip his balls” into things.
Ron Eldard is fine as the town him-bo who shacks up with Hunt’s sister (Maura Tierney) looking for a partner to quell her grief. Josh Hamilton turns in an acceptable performance as the resident philosophical pot grower that serves mostly a comedic purpose when paired against the high-strung Marino. Their characters add dimension, but not much weight. Ambrose sticks out like a sore thumb, but mostly due to the script’s contrivance to use her as an avatar of Hunt’s self-discovery. Her supportive critique of his photography was an eye-roller. Of course the lazy dreamer with no ambition could really “do something” with his photography. Naturally every big city Manhattanite knows everything about what makes a successful art career.
These grievances aside, Diggers is a quite, intimate movie that doesn’t presume to be anything more than it is. A portrait of small-town life on the East coast in the mid-1970’s. It tells its story at it’s own pace and makes few exceptions. The characterizations are warm and familiar while representing a sub-strata of life most of us aren’t close to. While the coming-of-age aspects of the film are at times rote, this film is a perfect counterbalance to the buffet of major studio sequels currently filling up screens.Take a lazy Saturday afternoon and curl up with this one. You won’t regret it.
Adam Brody, Rob Corddry, Famke Janssen, Ron Silver, Jason Sudeikis, Gretchen Mol, Oliver Platt, Paul Rudd, Winona Ryder, Liev Schreiber,and Jessica Alba.
There must have been something pretty attractive about The Ten (on DVD January 15) to attract this level of talent. Now that it’s all said and done, I’m still trying to figure out what it is.
Written and directed by two alumni of the sketch comedy group The State, The Ten is a modern examination of The Ten Commandments. It’s not so much a film as a series of comedy sketches performed by a rotating and sometimes interceding cast of characters.
Paul Rudd plays Jeff Reigert. An everyday guy, he’s supposed to be guiding us through these stories. But between his wife, his mistress and Diane Wiest, he can barely get two sentences out with breaking a commandment or two himself.
That’s about as much narrative as you’re going to get in this picture and the random inclusion of Diane Wiest should give a clue as to the completely unpredictable nature of this comedy.
The film is fairly elliptical about how it addresses the commandments. In some cases, those who break them end up having things work out for them just fine! It’s not so much a morality tale, but more of an attempt to let the air out of a serious subject. Watching the film, I kept thinking about Monty Python’s The Life of Brian. The Ten is just as random, just as offensive and just as odd but it’s not the kind of movie whose sense of humor all audiences will appreciate.
I mean, once you have Winona Ryder having vigorous sex with a ventriloquist’s puppet, pretty much all bets are off.
I think there is a lot to like in The Ten, but in small doses. I would have hoped that the film could have gotten out of it’s own way at times and maybe found a way to interweave the narrative between stories a little more. Near the end of the film, things start to gel . But from a distance, the film feels like little more than a series of sketches that would have played much better on TV.
Then again, the film never takes itself that seriously. So maybe neither should we.
This is a great film to have on DVD, a fun afternoon rental if you don’t mind disconnected humor. Give it a shot if you’re willing to try something different. It may end up growing on you. But audiences expecting traditional setups and punchlines should look elsewhere.
I don’t really have a problem with L.A.R.P.ing. I remember when I heard about it a few years ago, though. I think it was on MTV, of all places. That True Life documentary series they have? Yeah, on there.
I thought it was kind of weird at that time. But, in truth, it’s really no more or less weird than any other hobby. It’s dress-up and make-believe. When you’re a kid you do it all the time. But I guess you reach a certain age and that’s no longer “socially acceptable?” I don’t get it.
I mean, if you participate in a Renaissance Festival, than that’s okay. And if you’re a Civil War re-enactor, that’s okay… But L.A.R.Ping? How uncool!
Please. Hypocrisy, anyone?
I have to admit, however, that I was surprised by just how much L.A.R.P.ing was built into the storyline of Role Models. As you’ve probably gathered from the trailer, Christopher Mintz-Plasse plays Auggie Farks and L.A.R.P.ing is his main pursuit. I thought it was just supposed to be an odd character trait. I wasn’t expecting the whole third act to center around a L.A.R.P. event or to bear witness to several choreographed battle sequences. Toss in a handful of references to KISS and you have on of the most idiosyncratic comedies ever to slip into theaters under the guise of a by-the-book Hollywood laugher.
Seriously. It’s like the writers of the movie read from a list of disparate topics and asked themselves “Which of these can we tie together and still make them funny?” It feels like a improv exercise that grew legs and turned into a big-budget studio comedy. In other words, it shouldn’t have worked, but it totally did.
A lot of the credit goes to the film’s performances. Paul Rudd plays Danny, a misanthropic, borderline clinically depressed pitchman for an energy drink company. Danny’s in a rut. 35 and thinking that he should have accomplished more with his life. After an impuslive marriage proposal to his girlfriend (2008 MVP Elizabeth Banks) that rings false, she breaks up with him, moves out and Danny ends up on a self-destructive jag that causes him to lose his job and lands him in an after school program doing community service as part of a plea deal to keep him out of prison.
Rudd plays Danny with a level of defeated exhaustion, he can barely muster the bile to raise a sneer. You can see why his girlfriend would dump him. He picks fights with everyone and is generally draining to be around. Rudd does a great job of thoroughly inhabiting a very unlikeable character.
But we shouldn’t forget his partner in crime Wheeler, played by Sean Williams Scott. Wheeler is Danny’s co-worker and ends up in the same after-school program as an accessory to Danny’s outburst. Scott is very winning as Wheeler, playing him as a little thick but casual and worry-free. I like Scott, but he needs to give up on this idea of being an action hero. Between Bulletproof Monk, The Rundown and The Dukes of Hazzard, he’s much better off playing to his strengths and letting his natural charisma do the work for him.
The supporting performances in the film are good, but threaten to overshadow things a little bit. A lot of focus is placed on Christopher Mintz-Plasse’s character and that’s fine, but this kid is headed dangerously toward Anthony Michael Hall territoriy if he keeps it up with all the socially inept nerd roles. I guess he has a sense of humor about it, but perception is reality. It won’t be long before this is the only kind of role audiences will accept him in.
Bobb’e J. Thompson plays the foul-mouthed and breast-obsessed Ronnie and performs the role ably. I just wish it wasn’t such a cliche – the smart alex black kid. It’s kind of funny that he continually insults Rudd’s character by referencing Ben Affleck movies, but otherwise, it’s all shock-value and that wears thin fast.
Another supporting performance I enjoyed at first, but got tired of quickly was Jane Lynch as an ego-centric former addict and the director of the after-school program Rudd and Scott’s characters have been court-ordered to attend. Normally I look forward to Lynch’s performances. She was devistatingly effective as the store manager in The 40 Year-Old Virgin and you get the sense they were trying to do the same thing here, but they overuse her.
But these are small complaints. Role Models is a very effective comedy. Really more effective than it has any right to be. Several laugh out loud moments and an ending the gets sillier and sillier without ever coming off the rails. I had a good time with this one.
For more discussion about Role Models, be sure to tune into The Triple Feature, recording live tonight at 9PM CST at TalkShoe.com. In addition to Role Models, we’ll be covering JCVD, Synecdoche, New York and Soul Men. If you have a question for the group before the show starts, send it to us at group@thetriplefeature.com and we’ll answer it during the show! I’m really looking forward to tonight’s show. I think it’s going to be a good one. So be sure to tune in live!
See you there!
I have deeper thoughts about I Love You, Man. More so than what the comic might suggest.
When I saw the trailers for this a few months ago, I was really pumped to see it. Mostly because I am nurturing a serious man-crush for Paul Rudd and will watch anything he’s in.
But as time went on, I started asking myself “What is this movie?” The plot is simple enough. A man (Rudd) is getting married and realizes that he doesn’t have any guy friends to stand up on the altar with him. So he goes on a series of “man-dates” to find a new best friend and a Best Man for his wedding.
If you stop and think about it and if the genders were the opposite… wouldn’t this be a chick flick?
Both Rudd and co-star Jason Segel have gone on record stating that they don’t like how their film has been categorized as a “bromance.” But what else can you call it? Personally, I think it’s more fitting to label I Love You, Man a “bromance” such than other films that have been identified in that way. Knocked Up or Pineapple Express, for example.
Here’s another question… It’s shown in the trailer that Rudd’s character has both a brother and a father who is still alive. Why does he not ask either of them to be his Best Man. I don’t mean to judge the film based on the trailer (and hopefully they acknowledge the issue in the movie) but give us something to hang our hat in during the preview so we’re not asking dumb questions like that. A throw away line. ANYTHING!
“Hey, brother. Wanna be my best man?”
“No.”
“Dad?”
“No.”
#smash cut to a hilarious montage of “man-dates”#
Whatever. I’m totally seeing I Love You, Man this weekend anyway. Like I said, I have a man-crush to tend to.
Incidentally, while I was researching information about I Love You, Man, I came across this video of a performance in Rudd’s cannon I’m sure he’d like to forget. It’s from the Hong Kong action movie Gen-Y Cops (a sequel to the popular movie Gen-X Cops). In the film, Rudd plays F.B.I. Agent Ian Curtis (paging Joy Division!) who walks around with awesome feathered hair and highlights.
The video is a little more than 8 minutes long, but I encourage you to watch it in its entirety. You won’t be disappointed.
Gen-Y Cops came out in 2000, a few years before Rudd became more of a mainstream talent but a few years after he made his splash in Clueless. I am begging for some late night host to find this clip and show it to him when he’s making the promotional rounds for I Love You, Man. Not to make him uncomfortable, or anything. Just to hear him explain it. Rudd has a very winning self-deprecating sense of humor. I’d like to hear his take on it.
I had a couple of other things not related to the comic that I wanted to talk about today, but I think I’m going to quit while I’m ahead. It’s kind of hard to follow up with anything else after watching a video like that.
So… anyone holding out for a follow up with Gen-Z Cops?
As far as R-rated comedies go, I Love You, Man is kind of like a sheep in wolf’s clothing.
Sure, it tries to convince you that it’s a raunchy sex farce with it’s jokes about masturbation stations, oral sex and grandma’s riding Sybian machines. But in actuality, it’s an adorable little film about the difficulties of making friends in your 30’s.
I Love You, Man tries frequently to shock you into laughing, but is undercut by the sweetness and likability of it’s principal players.
After proposing to his girlfriend, real estate agent Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd) realizes that he doesn’t have a lot of guy friends and goes on a series of “man dates” in an effort to make friends. After a series of set-ups and disasters, Peter meets the enigmatic Sydney Fife (Jason Segel) and hijinks ensue.
The ever-agile Rudd takes his character’s earnestness and propensity for inventing half-cooked slang and nicknames (“See you later, Joben!”) beyond the socially awkward situations he finds himself in. Rudd’s character is pathetic in a way that you root for, not laugh at.
Segel as Sydney is meant to come off like some kind of latter-day hippie. We don’t know what he does for a living or why he dresses like a pawn shop refugee. Later, when Sydney asks Peter for an $8,000 loan, we’re meant to question if his intentions are honorable. But Segel’s sincerity as a performer shines through. And even though Sydney is a bit of an odd duck, he operates within the parameters of a very specific, laid back personal philosophy. He’s never really as outrageous or dangerous as the movie wants you to think he is.
These are not criticisms meant to convince you that I Love You, Man is a bad movie. In fact, it is a very tidy, effective and humorous examination of making friends later in life and the importance of male bonding.
Certainly it is buoyed by the strength of it’s phenomenal supporting cast. Writer/Director John Hamburg did an excellent job of gathering talent. Everyone from the adorable Rashida Jones as Rudd’s fiance, Andy Samberg, Jaime Pressly, Jon Favreau, J.K. Simmons, Jane Curtain, Human Giant’s Rob Huebel and The State’s Thomas Lennon and Joe Lo Truglio make appearances.
On Blu-ray, the movie looks spectacular. You can see every last freckle on Jason Segel’s face. Although, I’m starting to become concerned that between this movie and Forgetting Sarah Marshall on Blu-ray, I’m becoming a little too knowledgeable about Segel’s dermatological landscape.
Extras on the disc are everything you would expect. Deleted scenes, extended scenes, a gag reel, a “making-of” documentary and audio commentary from Hamburg, Rudd and Segel.
The extended scenes and gag reel demonstrate not only the large amount of quick-fire improvising that was happening during production, but also Rudd’s aparant inability to keep a straight face at any given time.
Then again, when you have Rob Huebell (as Peter’s real estate rival) sitting across from you ad-libbing all of the celebrities he’s sold homes to, it’s kind of hard not to laugh “Gary Coleman, Emmanuel Lewis, Jaleel White, Donald Sutherland…”
In fact, everything about these extras seems to indicate that the production of I Love You, Man was one of the most loose, playful, happiest experiences ever captured on film. And there’s nothing wrong with that! Next time, don’t try to compete with Bruno for shock value. There’s nothing wrong with making a sweet natured comedy and playing to those strengths.
For people looking for some relaxed laughs with a couple of sex jokes thrown in, I Love You, Man fits the bill.
There was another version of this comic that I think was a little more pedestrian. In the original version, it was going to be Charlie asking Cami to see Our Idiot Brother with her. Cami abstains, telling Charlie she can save $8.00 and watch Tom do something stupid instead. Cut to Tom looking down the barrel of a shotgun for a Cheeto he dropped, or something. Maybe it would have been funnier. The world will never know.
Truthfully, I thought it was a little more disparaging of Tom and Cami’s relationship than I would have liked. That Cami would sit idly by while Tom put a gun to his face seemed needlessly callous to me. But if there wasn’t threat of bodily harm, it wouldn’t have been funny. Stalemate. So I went this route instead.
I don’t know about you, but I enjoy dialogue where characters backtrack away from outlandish statements when confronted with withering glances. I know it’s a trope, but it’s a trope because it works. So I wanted to try a little bit of it here. That said, I feel a little bad that I didn’t actually give Charlie a chance to say anything. Hey! Remember when I used to do story lines that used to last a month? Remember character development? Man, I miss those days.
I’m getting a little down on myself. Let’s switch tracks, shall we?
I’m still kind of recovering from the Chicago Comic Con, but in a good way. Basically just taking time to reassess things and figuring out what I can do to improve. Conventions always do that for me. They’re exhausting work, but also very energizing creatively. You see all of these other artists around you and – even if you don’t like their style – it’s easy to be humbled by their techniques… their view of the world. The challenge is to learn from that exposure and figure out a way to incorporate what you observe into your own workflow. Considering the amount of inspiration I find at conventions, it’s a shame I don’t go to more of them!
I will say this… I got a great e-mail from someone I met at Chicago Comic Con. Someone who had never heard of Theater Hopper before that weekend. He picked up one of my sampler booklets, read it and loved it so much that he came back to the site and bought a copy of Theater Hopper: Year Two and Theater Hopper: Year Three.
I’ve been writing and drawing Theater Hopper now for 9 years. So it’s not often that I hear from people who are new to the comic. Let’s face it. The archive is… daunting. Not very many people want to sit and read 1,000+ comics. So, now more than ever, I’m only as good as my last comic. My work is timely, but also transient. If I attract a new reader at all, I presume they don’t feel as compelled to stick around as long if a particular comic doesn’t strike them as funny.
Anyway, back on point… this person’s order along with their complimentary letter was a really nice surprise – because I didn’t know my work could continue to make an impact like that.
Just an observation. Nothing more.
Switching gears again, I invite you guys to check out the Bonus Materials blog. I know updates have been spotty, but I’m trying to do better about that. For the most part, it’s me linking to newly-released trailers and talking about them. But if I get my hooks into anything meatier from a movie news standpoint, I’ll be sure to post that as well.
I just wanted to remind you that the blog is out there and I update it during the week. So if you want to strike up a conversation, that’s a good place to do it.
That’s all for right now. Cheers and have a good week!