Posts Tagged ‘comedy’

Youth in Revolt review

Director Miguel Arteta, certificate 15, 90 minutes, out Friday 5th February

Michael Cera has a tendency, it seems, to play one character and one character only. You know the one: kind of weird, awkward around girls but with a nice line in sharp witticisms. Whether he’s playing George Michael in the superlative sitcom Arrested Development, horny teen in Superbad or teen father in Juno, Cera has yet to properly stretch his range. This trend changes slightly in Youth in Revolt. In time-honoured teen comedy tradition, boy meets girl and boy wants to bang said girl. Of course, it’s never as simple as that and Youth in Revolt hampers Nick Twisp (Cera)’s attempts to do the deed with Sheeni Saunders (Portia Doubleday) with the usual mix of meddling parents, ghastly love rival and unfortunate circumstance.

In an effort to overcome these problems, wet Nick adopts a new personality, the considerably more suave and daring Francois Dillinger. As Dillinger, Nick is able to pull off the kind of crazy shit that he believes will ultimately bring him and his beloved together. Nick encounters reams of characters in his quest to get his girl, each more entertaining than the last. Take, for example, Ray Liotta’s opportunistic cop, Steve Buscemi’s creepy dad or Justin Long’s off-kilter magic mushroom fiend. The strength of the considerable cast is probably Youth in Revolt’s greatest attribute.

Other likeable aspects of the film include a wittier-than-average script – some of Francois’ lines are brilliantly rude – and an eye pleasing colour pallet. Tony Fanning’s production design gives Nick’s world a bright and colourful sheen that contrasts his surly world-view. There are also some amusingly quirky moments in the script too. Some sailors take revenge on Nick’s swindling step-father in a most bizarre and amusing way and the Saunders’ family home is a fairly unorthodox establishment.

On the less than appealing side, during the film, the realisation will hit you that you’re simply watching another American Pie or Road Trip that fancies itself as being a bit clever ‘cause it’s based off a book, has twee animated sequences and references Fellini. This realisation hits pretty much when Nick and sidekick Vijay (Adhir Kalyan) are fleeing naked from a female dormitory they’ve sneaked into. Now there’s nothing wrong with gross-out teen comedies per se, but for some reason I assumed Youth in Revolt would offer something more. The ‘moral message’ at the end also hits you in the face like an egged John Prescott and is about as subtle as Katie Price.

The film’s general good nature and Cera’s ability, often with nothing more than vacant look, to conjure a constant stream of titters (if not full-on belly laughs), however, overrule these criticisms. The lead actor’s ability to balance his dual role speaks promise for future projects, hopefully in ways that will stretch his abilities further. Youth in Revolt is not without its flaws, but all but the most cynical of cinema-goers should enjoy the fun while it lasts.

(three stars)

Onlinerel Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati del.icio.us Digg Google Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon

Chris Rock: Kill the Messenger review

Eddie Murphy in Norbit. Martin Lawrence in Big Momma’s House 2. It’s tough being an outspoken black comedian these days. Not that you’d guess from Chris Rock’s latest DVD, Kill the Messenger, which takes aim at a veritable smorgasbord of issues from race relations to the price of petrol to that guy off Grey’s Anatomy who said ‘faggot’. It’s a punchy, irreverent comedy set that cherry picks from the best of the comedian’s 2008 tour in Johannesburg, London and New York. While his peers might be keen to don a fat suit and star in idiotic kid flicks, Rock has consistently kept his head above the water and largely stuck to his comedic roots, a few ill-advised dalliances into the mainstream aside. Accordingly, he seems to enjoy a mythic status usually reserved for rock stars, the dramatic opening titles of his performance somewhat erroneously suggesting that this is the ‘Biggest Tour on the Planet’. It’s not, but it’s frequently hilarious.

Rock deliberately styles himself as a manic, wide-eyed soothsayer railing against contemporary hypocrisies in this eighty minute broadside that aims to be self-consciously ‘controversial’ but soon settles into a comfortable realm of light entertainment. In this vein, he mostly succeeds in skewering ostensibly serious topics in a manner by equal turns cheery and gutsy, though the results are mixed. His political material is immediately dated, filled as it is with references to John McCain’s age and his “nurse” Sarah Palin, as well as a long segment dedicated to the “blackness” of Obama’s name. As you might guess, race dominates his material, with Rock elucidating all its bizarre idiosyncrasies ranging from why black men apparently have a penchant for large white women, to the only socially acceptable situation where use of the ‘N word’ is justified (between 4:30 and 4:48am on Christmas Eve, in case you’re wondering). Though these ostensible racial differences form the backbone of Rock’s set, it easily rises above ‘black people do this… but white people do this…’ territory. Rock almost knowingly plays up to this image of himself as provocateur-in-chief, ending several controversial statements with an agitated grunt of “Yeah, I said it!”

Whilst some may find Chris Rock an offensive, brash vulgarian, it’s advisable to look beyond the taboo-busting and four letter words and simply enjoy a comedian at the summit of his craft. If anything, as the lithe performers bounds across giant stages on three different continents to thousands of adoring fans, the jokes almost seem too slick and the ‘spontaneous’ remarks too well rehearsed. Indeed, beneath the wild exterior Rock is reliant on fairly basic observational humour – the differences between rich and poor, male and female – but he repackages these old hat clichés in refreshing and consistently disarming ways.

Let’s just hope he doesn’t crack the fat suit out any time soon. Those with a delicate sensibility, though, should look elsewhere.

Onlinerel Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati del.icio.us Digg Google Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon

Off The Hook review

The Urban Dictionary gives several definitions for the phrase ‘off the hook’: ‘referring to something being so “fresh” and “new” that it’s literally right off the store shelf’, ‘cool or happening’, ‘exceeding the minimal standard of satisfaction’ and ‘appealing to one’s mind’ are just the first of many. Off The Hook is also an appalling BBC sit-com that is being unleashed onto DVD after first being broadcast online. It is at this point in the review I would include a clichéd remark about the show failing to adhere to the guidelines of the trades description act for satisfying none of the definitions given by our friend the Urban Dictionary.

I like to think I’m fairly open minded when it comes to sit-coms, but Off The Hook pushed my patience to the very limits. I’m often niggled by the term ‘edgy’ when it comes to TV and film. ‘Edgy’ is a buzz word that means ‘we’re trying too hard to sell this to a savvy audience’. It pains me then, to admit that Off The Hook’s main problem is its total and complete lack of ‘edginess’. What we have here are the misadventures of a group of freshers at a fictional university. The first sentence of the press release also tells us that ‘Off The Hook is a new aspirational comedy which combines superb storylines with a young British cast’. True enough, the show is relatively new and yes, the cast are young and British.  However, the programme doesn’t seem to ‘aspire’ to anything other than the lowest common denominator so aspirational seems like a stretch (the OED online also has a draft definition of aspirational that means ‘representative of or associated with a sophisticated, stylish, or otherwise attractive lifestyle to which consumers might aspire’. Trust me when I tell you anyone looking to Off The Hook as an ‘attractive lifestyle’ in any way seriously needs treatment for a clinically underdeveloped imagination).

Likewise, ‘comedy’ is a rather generous description (I believe I snorted in amusement once during the entire 210 minute duration of the series, and almost definitely at its expense). Its humour is so broad; it’s insulting to the intelligence of anyone who has mastered tying their own shoelaces. That leaves us with ‘superb storylines’. Let’s scrutinise this claim. In one episode, the two male leads manage to secure themselves dates with two attractive German sisters, mostly through the virtue that the girls don’t understand English very well. To raise money for their double date, the boys take experimental drugs. The comedic climax of this episode involves our ‘heroes’ farting uncontrollably. All because Shane (the annoyingly brash one) neglects to look on the other side of the information pamphlet that came with the drugs! Hilarious! A superb storyline if ever I saw one. Another climaxes with Shane and Danny (the annoyingly earnest one) rolling on the floor wearing sumo wrestler suits! Side-splitting! Another ends, via some very convoluted means, with a slideshow of a female flatmate’s face superimposed next to Shane’s pimply arse! Somebody pass them a Pulitzer! Needless to say, ‘superb storylines’ must be some kind of media-speak for ‘scripts as weak and flimsy as a newborn giraffe with low blood sugar’.

The lack of laughs would be less problematic if Off The Hook gave some kind of semblance of what first year university life was really like. Again, the show more or less fails. Just about every aspect has been watered down and neutralised. It’s particularly telling that the BBFC has seen fit to rate the series ‘12’, mostly for ‘moderate sex references’. I make no claims to be any kind of hedonist, but I’m fairly certain most people’s time at university certainly include more sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll than portrayed in Off The Hook. The characters never even swear for goodness sake. And frankly, my first year was a hell of a lot more enjoyable than the relentless series of misfortunes that befall Danny and Shane. Some uni quirks though are represented, such as the one flatmate who never leaves their room in halls, often playing deafening dubstep at all hours, and the wilful eccentricities of art departments.

It is these few observations and a gung ho cast that are Off The Hook’s only saving graces. Morose flatmate Fred is the only vaguely funny character; unfortunately, he is played by The Inbetweener’s filth-spouting James Buckley, which only serves to highlight how much better that show is and how transparently Off The Hook wishes to emulate its success. This, however, is not enough to save this lame duck of a TV show. Given its heritage of championing comedy and dedication to exposing new comedic talent, it is frustrating how the BBC can be responsible for such dross. This is the broadcaster that launched Ricky Gervais’ career – the closest Off The Hook gets to Gervais-like wit is that the show feels as much as a parody of a sit-com as ‘When The Whistle Blows’ is on Extras. Only Off The Hook is for real. The show’s faults can be summed up most succinctly in its lack of bravery and realism belied by its certification – a comedy about university for twelve year olds. And stupid twelve year olds at that.

Onlinerel Facebook Twitter Myspace Friendfeed Technorati del.icio.us Digg Google Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon

Polls

Are the EDL just misunderstood?

  • No, they're dangerous and have to be stopped. (72%)
  • Yes. The media have just blown their true motivations out of proportion. (28%)
Loading ... Loading ...