Observe and Report

[Watashi]

Red Band Trailer (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/02/06/observe-and-report-red-band-movie-trailer/#more-19481)

Here is the anti-Paul Blart.

[Ezee E]

I like it. A lot.

[number8]

This is going to be great. Anyone else seen Foot Fist Way?

[EvilShoe]

Looks real good.
I'm glad Rogen is doing a different role than usual.

[Rowland]

This is going to be great. Anyone else seen Foot Fist Way?
Yeah, thought it was crap.

[Dukefrukem]

haha! "cut! you fucked up maam"

[Rowland]

Hmm, I'm reading some interesting buzz about this. While I didn't care for The Foot Fist Way, I have to admit that its sheer abrasiveness has stuck with me, and from the sounds of it, director Jody Hill has pushed that element even further with his commercial debut. Color me intrigued.

[MadMan]

Looks utterly hilarious. I like the Taxi Driver and Bad Santa elements that showed up in the trailers for it.

[number8]

Hmm, I'm reading some interesting buzz about this. While I didn't care for The Foot Fist Way, I have to admit that its sheer abrasiveness has stuck with me, and from the sounds of it, director Jody Hill has pushed that element even further with his commercial debut. Color me intrigued.

This. I didn't like it much, either, and I barely laughed at all, but it was a fascinating character study that McBride brought to life.

I'm hoping this'll do the same with Rogen. He hasn't really shown a dark side yet.

[D_Davis]

The Foot Fist Way ended up being a different film than I thought it was going to be. I went in expecting a Napoleon Dynamite-esque indie-comedy, but I was presented with a film that had a dark streak running through its very core. It left me feeling uncomfortable, but I appreciated it for doing what it did.

[Wryan]

I saw the trailer in theatres for Watchmen and it looked like shit. Not red band, but still shit.

[NickGlass]

Another film with Anna Faris that I have no desire to see beyond the fact that she's in it.

Sigh.

[Grouchy]

Hey. That looks pretty solid.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I thought this was pretty good actually. Liked it better than Adventureland.

[Pop Trash]

A lot of critics seem downright confused by this movie, but they keep comparing it to things like Taxi Driver, Dirty Harry, Bad Santa, and Punch-Drunk Love, so that definately peaks my curiosity. One critic even said he doubts he will see a weirder Hollywood movie come out this year.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Oh, I definitely loved how this was much darker than typical Rogen fare. It's a slightly creepy movie about some truly pathetic people.

[trotchky]

I'm really excited to see this one.

[Watashi]

I liked it a great deal. It's pretty much the exact opposite of Adventureland. I think it was hyped up way too much in the squirmish and "you'll never believe what they got away in a studio film" factor. Outside of the hilarious final scene, it was standard cruise control. Seth and Aziz's "Fuck you" showdown is the highlight of the film.

Probably my favorite lead Rogen film after Knocked Up.

[number8]

This movie fucking rocks. It just shot up to be my favorite Rogen film.

[Pop Trash]

I think this is almost there but not quite. I admire what the filmmakers are trying to do here. It's as if they watched Taxi Driver and King of Comedy and were like "Hey, what if we took this template but played it as a broad comedy?" but I'm not sure if it is completely successful.

I think it would have been more subversive and interesting if by the halfway point of the movie it went completely into a darker realm. It seemed like the filmmakers couldn't trust their ability to not make a scene without a punchline here and there. Like for example: the Taxi Driver-esque voice over near the end is a genuinely interesting choice but even that is fucked up by having Roegan go "oh wait, let me start over" reminding us that we are watching a movie and going for a cheap laugh.

It's a case of wanting to have their cake and eat it to. On one hand they want to create a dark study of a sociopath but on the other they want to have a broad mainstream studio comedy that goes for the belly laughs and has a crowd pleasing ending (which may or may not be a fantasy but since there is no indication of a fantasy, I'm guessing it's meant to be taken at face value)

I'd give it a 7/10 for a good try and certainly more interesting and weirder than I would have expected but I think a more agile filmmaker would have made better choices with this material.

[Ezee E]

Loved this.

[trotchky]

The movie felt extremely short to me, which I enjoyed; it also bucks any conventional plot formula of its genre which I enjoyed too. It's a smooth ride in an off-road vehicle, crossing bumpy terrain and feeling good doing it. I don't remember much of it at this point but I would like to see it again.

[number8]

Some months from now, I want to hold a double feature viewing of Foot Fist Way and Observe & Report with a bunch of friends.

I will take notes on who had a joyful time, and who got depressed.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, I'm definitely bumping Foot Fist Way to the top of my queue now.

[trotchky]

The climax is almost a rebuke to Pineapple Express' over-the-top finale, and funnier than anything in that movie's drawn out action sequence.

[Pop Trash]

The climax is almost a rebuke to Pineapple Express' over-the-top finale, and funnier than anything in that movie's drawn out action sequence.

Meh. The Pineapple Express script was better for one thing. This relied too heavy on ubiquitous "fuck yous." Fuck you, no fuck you, no really I insist fuck you, no fuck you motherfucker. Laaaazy.

[Watashi]

I think the biggest problem with the film is that it portrays too much of Ronnie's bipolar outbursts as a "good thing". We are meant to root for him and support him when he's beating down a horde of cops with a flashlight. I think the dual morality Hill was trying to aim for became too unfocused and was spent exploring side characters (like Pena and the mother who were both terrible) for cheap laughs. The film wasn't dark enough and was really two colliding genres fighting for their own scenes. I like the "Taxi Driver in a mall" scenario, but with Rogen's history and the ultimate satisfication felt towards the end, I never felt disgusted or wronged by Ronnie's actions even though they were corrupt.

[number8]

I think the biggest problem with the film is that it portrays too much of Ronnie's bipolar outbursts as a "good thing". We are meant to root for him and support him when he's beating down a horde of cops with a flashlight. I think the dual morality Hill was trying to aim for became too unfocused and was spent exploring side characters (like Pena and the mother who were both terrible) for cheap laughs. The film wasn't dark enough and was really two colliding genres fighting for their own scenes. I like the "Taxi Driver in a mall" scenario, but with Rogen's history and the ultimate satisfication felt towards the end, I never felt disgusted or wronged by Ronnie's actions even though they were corrupt.

This to me is precisely why the film is brilliant. I think this is entirely deliberate, in that it tells the story completely from Ronnie's perspective. Because, really, it grows from a very formulaic underdog story, the kind that Paul Blart is derived from.

Lovable bumbling loser outcast proves himself to be better than arrogant cops, realizing the popular girl isn't right for him and goes for the nice girl he never notices? It's such a standard story, but what if the loser is really pathetic and disgusting, and his "bumbling" ways causes serious harm and injury to others? And yet, as he does all this questionable things, the film is still on his side and presents him as the hero?

To me, that's way more interesting and ultimately disturbing than if the film actually paints him as a morally conflicted character, because we know he's bipolar, delusional and yet drawn to a sense of justice. Yet you know that Ronnie's behavior (beating up cops, date raping the girl of his dreams, etc) are 100% wrong. The film doesn't need to say it. In a weird way, the movie reminded me heavily of Nolan's Batman films, and I think this is a more successful portrayal of that broken vigilante moral compass.

Besides, didn't Taxi Driver do the exact same thing at the end, with Travis going up against a horde of pimps in a badass and violent shootout, and then hailed as a hero?

[trotchky]

Meh. The Pineapple Express script was better for one thing. This relied too heavy on ubiquitous "fuck yous." Fuck you, no fuck you, no really I insist fuck you, no fuck you motherfucker. Laaaazy.

I liked Pineapple Express but I thought it was overlong and I completely lost interest when it turned into an action movie. Even the brilliant Role Models stretches its optimism past the point of believability in its final moments. Observe and Report never pretends its characters are anything but a bunch of pathetic people doing insane shit. There is no moment of revelation, no appeal to higher decency, and I appreciated that.

[Ezee E]

8 is right. The entire movie is focused solely on the viewpoint of Ronnie. There's only a handful of scenes that don't even have him featured. By following Ronnie's viewpoints, we never see a consequence of his actions, only as how he would tell it to others. Taxi Driver does the same thing.

I want to see this again. Does he narrate the entire movie? If so, I wonder if he's simply telling someone his side of the story. Hence, him taking on twenty cops before he gets taken down.

I was one of the few who was laughing throughout the whole movie, among the many shocked people who weren't sure if they should laugh or not.

With that, I like that there are a few comedies taking on a strong approach to direction. The use of music, and the compositions by Orr made the movie all the more impressive.

Yeah, definitely will see this again in the theater.

[Pop Trash]

Besides, didn't Taxi Driver do the exact same thing at the end, with Travis going up against a horde of pimps in a badass and violent shootout, and then hailed as a hero?

I thought of this too. I mean if Hill is following the Taxi Driver formula to a T, then of course you would have to have the happy ending. The big difference between this and Taxi Driver, and what makes the ending there brilliant and ironic is that Taxi Driver is always heading towards a downward spiral and the audience expectation is one of massive dread and violence. We get that in the big shootout but there is the ironically happy coda.

With O&R the tone is (mostly) one of humor and comedy and so to flip that and surprise the audience, I think Hill would have (and should have IMO) gone into a darker, dramatic space. There are hints that the film was going in this direction, particularly after (SPOILER) Ronnie loses his chance to become a real cop, but Hill continuously hedges his bets by continuing in the obvious comedic tone all the way to the ending.

I'm reminded of when I saw Happiness in the theater. During the first half most people in the audience were laughing at the Jon Lovitz scene or even at Phillip Seymore Hoffman making obscene phone calls and using his spunk for adhesive, because tonally, at least to that point, it was almost like a Farrelly Brothers comedy. But at the point it went into drugging and raping a child, the theater went deadly silent all the way to end (although the dog licking spunk got a laugh) and (of course) you could tell most in the audience were genuinely disturbed. I'm not saying O&R has to be as dark as Happiness (nor could it being a studio comedy) but it would have been more interesting if Hill kept that more serious tone he seemed to be heading towards during certain moments.

Manhola Dargis' review of this in the NY Times is pretty good reading, even if I liked the movie more than her, she touches on the same points I am making. I do think our conversations here are proof positive that this is a more interesting film than most studio comedies. Even though I "liked" I Love You, Man more, I do think O&R is more interesting.

[number8]

I disagree with that, because I feel like O&R did exactly the same thing, just not as jarring as Taxi Driver's coda. Right before the climax, the movie does hit a very low point for the character, and there was that looming sense of dread with Ronnie being beaten and arrested, and then the whole "I have to pay for my coffee now" speech. It even extends to the violent shooting of the flasher, which makes no attempt to make the moment cartoony or excusable. The audience I saw it with reacted more with shock than belly-laughs, really. But whereas Taxi Driver has to jump to another scene months later to give the ironic ending, O&R's starts immediately with the mall patrons clapping for Ronnie. You can almost imagine that as soon as Ronnie pulls the trigger, we jump entirely into fantasy and that there's an alternate ending where Ronnie is once again arrested with a smoking gun, smiling, as the flasher bleeds to death. I like the "fantasy" ending better.

[Ezee E]

Yep. Indeed.

[Pop Trash]

Well Ben Lyons and Ben Mankowitz just told me to skip this so clearly it sucks.

[Watashi]

I really disagree with you, 8. I thought Ronnie shooting the flasher was definitely played for laughs and cheers just in same vein as Rorschach's beatdown in the cafeteria. My audience cheered during both of those scenes. That's the film's biggest problem. Where it should be disturbing and revolting, it still confused by what genre it wants to be.

I still like it a lot, but it's way off course tonally.

[Ezee E]

It was mostly laughs from the shock of it coming out of nowhere. Granted, it becomes laughs later, but mostly for it being so out there, which is what 8's been saying all along, that its basically fantasy.

[trotchky]

Was Taxi Driver confused because some viewers found Travis Bickle's actions noble? It does the same thing as that movie only under the guise of comedy rather than drama, which both ensnares a much wider audience and is more subversive. It's trickier.

[Ezee E]

And instead of a letter from the girls' parents, it's a letter from "his friend."

[Sycophant]

Saw this. Loved it.

From very early on, it's indicated how dangerous Ronnie is. I found myself laughing fairly often, but it wasn't usually about what Ronnie was doing, it was about what the film was doing, the places it went, and how it went there. It puts us entirely behind Ronnie's eyes in these things, but as a viewer, I found almost everything Ronnie did from the outset of the movie completely reprehensible, though I could follow his whacked out train of thought.

Actually, I was bracing myself for a much more horrible, blood-soaked ending, even as a fantasy.

And to reference Pineapple Express again, almost everything I found wrong about its third act was corrected here.

[monolith94]

I found the shooting of the flasher to be played as a stark moment of violence; I didn't laugh. There were only 5 people in the theater when I went, though.

Fabulous film: it really looks at how we imagine the underclass in America, I think. It's somewhat unpredictable, and formally well-composed, and Anna Farris does a fantastic job of charicaturing the idiocy that our culture tolerates and occassionally celebrates. Oh, and Seth Rogen does too.

Perhaps the most powerful moment for me was the framing of the shot of little Nell going in for her kiss. What happens is that the perspective and angling creates a visual parallel between her & Ronnie's mom: Freud's Oedipus complex living out again, just as it did in Tarkovsky's Mirror and Lee's The Hulk. That was very interesting. The fact that she's a less depressing character than the drunk mom seems to present a slightly optimistic view of the future for Ronnie, but can we be sure?

[Raiders]

I'll try and present some better argument, though in reading I think Dargis and Zacharek do a pretty good job, but to me, it just ain't funny. You can make all the comparisons to Taxi Driver you want, call the film "ambiguous" and call into question its potential Ronnie-point-of-view, but in the end there is no question Hill wanted much of this to be funny in the "ha ha" sense. And I find little amusing about what transpired.

[monolith94]

Observe and Report presents a view of American life that is massively cynical, full of despair and violence and ignorance, and whether the author of the film intended it to be this sort of commentary or not is almost beside the point, for me. He may have intended a stupid gross-out comedy, but what he's got is a look into the reptilian mind of the American plebe.

[Raiders]

Observe and Report presents a view of American life that is massively cynical, full of despair and violence and ignorance, and whether the author of the film intended it to be this sort of commentary or not is almost beside the point, for me. He may have intended a stupid gross-out comedy, but what he's got is a look into the reptilian mind of the American plebe.

So what we got is an unintentionally depressing and unfunny "comedy" that clearly adores its despicable main character inasmuch as he allows the film maximum unease without ever having to seem genuinely worth caring about.

I realize to be even more cynical of "America" is in vogue, but I'm not buying using Ronnie as some intro into a larger social arena. It makes no sense from my own world view and if intended by the filmmakers it is completely floundered.

[monolith94]

Think about the interaction between the characters, Raiders, think about how they each attempt to create a narrative. How, when Ronnie has been unsuccessful at joining the police force, Nell goes along with it, confirming his (false) narrative about why he won't be a cop. Consider how this ameliorates Ronnie's delicate ego, just as Ronnie's mom throws him the party, and then gives him that cute little speech that mothers are supposed to give.

I cared about Ronnie in the sense that he was a pathetic figure, pathetic in a different way than, say, Willy Loman. A pathetic figure for our time. Is it accurate? Not really: it's on the darkest end of the spectrum of how we view ourselves. But just as it is important to read Burroughs to explore how far into blackness our minds can go, how deep into the centipede's mandibles we will allow ourselves, I think it is important to glimpse this nihilistic perspective. This film has betrayal, schadenfruede, deceit, wrath, lust, all of the seven sins neatly tied up.

As far as whether it's funny or not, I laughed, so I guess that counts. I thought that the comic timing was brilliant, especially when Ronnie started doing lines. That whole scene for me was the proverbial "gut buster."

[Sycophant]

Looking at the commentary on this film, I'm struck by how much what Jody Hill was "trying to do" is up for discussion, and how so much of the reaction to the film hinges on that perception. Not that that's invalid.

I see it more as a film that cuts open the kind of antisocial misanthropy, delusions, and arrested development that is frequently embraced for comedy. I was uneasy from the very opening with Ronnie shooting his guns. And with everything he did thereafter, I never trusted that Ronnie was going to do good things.

So when he had a "fuck you" showdown with Saddam, they both came off as pricks, but I was also scared for Saddam. Because right through the end of the movie, I thought Ronnie was going to kill him. He punches him at the end, gratuitiously, and I didn't laugh--but I'm glad it was there. Because of how fundamentally wrong it was.

I liked Ian Pugh's (http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/observeandreport.htm) review, which is pretty close to the same place that my mind is in regards to this film.

[Ezee E]

Yeah Syc. You don't exactly say why I think it's funny, but one of the reasons I did think it's funny is because we don't really know what Ronnie will do. Most comedies are rather predictable in the setup of its jokes, but this one would sometimes go in different directions. Still funny to me most of the time, even if it was shocking.

[number8]

So... feminists are angry over the date rape scene in this movie, and I wrote a long rebuttal (http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/movie-news/5140-yes-theres-rape-in-qobserve-and-reportq-so.html).

Feel free to neg rep if you disagree, I suppose. :P

[Raiders]

Actually, I think the film lets itself off the hook by having Faris' character be conscious enough to, of course, fulfill the fantasy to the fullest and actually enjoy it. It was a shocking moment, but one that was a bit sobering and truly showed Ronnie for the pathetic character he is (I was reminded of Romero's Martin where our "hero" is delusioned by classic vampire lore only to in the next shot be seen cowering and clumsily, and sexlessly, sucking on a drugged woman's arm). But, as with many of the gags, the film undercuts itself by still trying so hard to be a "ha ha" comedy. And since I never really laughed when it seemed obvious I was supposed to, I just kind of became bored by the film's attempts to push the boundaries.

[number8]

Actually, I think the film lets itself off the hook by having Faris' character be conscious enough to, of course, fulfill the fantasy to the fullest and actually enjoy it.

I don't follow? How does that let itself off the hook?

[megladon8]

I think because it makes the act seem ever-so-slightly more consentual than if she had been snoring? Maybe?

[Raiders]

I don't follow? How does that let itself off the hook?

Is there consensual rape that isn't statutory? I mean, yeah, it's still technically date rape and you could easily argue she's too far gone to grasp what is happening, but after that point it becomes much less disturbing and it seems as if Hill himself was uncomfortable taking Ronnie to the natural extreme. I think the scene would be far more impactful without that moment.

I guess my ultimate point is, with the film as a whole, for me it isn't disturbing or shocking enough to be memorable and it isn't funny enough to be enjoyable. I was just kind of bummed about the whole thing.

[number8]

Well, I actually find it even more disturbing this way, because it really dilutes the message. Part of why the feminists are angry is because Farris' comment implies consent, as if a drunken groggy command can be considered as one (we all agree that it's not, right?). The crux of their argument is that this scenario happens often to women, and that the scene will confuse Rogen's neanderthalite fans into thinking that as long as the woman isn't completely passed out, it's completely okay. And I think that's exactly Ronnie's line of thinking--"Oh, okay, she's still kinda awake. This is totally consensual." The implication on his character is creepier that way, at least to me, because it shows a pathetic logic behind it, rather than outright malice.

[Ezee E]

And afterwards Anna Faris is more spooked by him then simply annoyed.

[trotchky]

Second viewing tonight; liked it even more. That the shooting comes after he's back on his meds, combined with the closing images of him at the shooting gallery, reflects more on society and particularly the recent spate of gun violence than being a "keep the loonies doped up and harmless" message. A plus!

[transmogrifier]

This movie interests me.

[Pop Trash]

I'm kind of siding more with Raiders on this one, even if I liked the movie more than him. I do think my problems with it lie in Hill's inability to truly go through with moments without having a not-that-funny punchline at the end of every set up. Like Raiders was saying, if Hill wanted to be truly subversive here, at the end of the date rape scene he wouldn't have had Farris wake up and tell Roegan to keep going. It's like there are darker impulses that Hill seems to want that he can't quite go through with, since this is a Hollywood comedy and all. Like I said, it's a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too, but it creates a tonally muddled film. Still, I think it's much more interesting than most comedies coming out of Hollywood these days.

[trotchky]

I'm kind of siding more with Raiders on this one, even if I liked the movie more than him. I do think my problems with it lie in Hill's inability to truly go through with moments without having a not-that-funny punchline at the end of every set up. Like Raiders was saying, if Hill wanted to be truly subversive here, at the end of the date rape scene he wouldn't have had Farris wake up and tell Roegan to keep going. It's like there are darker impulses that Hill seems to want that he can't quite go through with, since this is a Hollywood comedy and all. Like I said, it's a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too, but it creates a tonally muddled film. Still, I think it's much more interesting than most comedies coming out of Hollywood these days.
Just because the film never completely relinquishes comedy doesn't mean it's never serious. The closing shots of Ronnie at a shooting gallery seem to drive home the grim irony of the whole thing. There are other clues as well, like the distortion of that "I will paint my masterpiece" song (reminiscent of the warbled version of "My Way" over Goodfellas' end credits) that plays over some of the most violent segments, like the drug montage (Dennis telling Ronnie "There's nothing good about this at all" while shooting up heroin stands out as a particularly tragic, pathetic moment) and the fight with the cops.

One thing I found really notable was how much the film emphasized Ronnie's mental illness; starting from the moment he gives his pills away there's a lingering sense of impending doom as he becomes increasingly unhinged and violent. Where the film is truly subversive, I think, is in having Ronnie shoot the flasher after he's back on his medication. We're given this sense of calm after the storm (which Ronnie presumably is feeling as well), and the tone of "everything is going to be okay" remains through the end despite the out-of-left-field brutal violence. And again the final images of Ronnie shooting directly into the camera say it all about the types of violence we as a society deem acceptable or even celebrate and the types of violence we condemn. It masks its messages in comedy rather than in action, but that doesn't make it any less of a litmus test for the viewer.

[Ezee E]

I don't know... I laughed pretty hard at the heroin shot.

[trotchky]

I did too, but I mean, I also got a thrill out of Travis Bickle fucking some people up. I guess the point I'm trying make is that comedy and point-making aren't mutually exclusive, or uh there's nothing inherently wrong with pandering to an audience and it's very possible to be subversive while doing just that. Otherwise you end up with overwrought shit like Twentynine Palms.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'm fucking stunned that you guys liked this. Just stunned. This was so unbelievably bad. All of you who enjoyed this movie are the same people who enjoyed Napoleon Dynamite, right? Because this movie treated its characters with the same amount of derision. Every character was the butt of one lame joke after another, with each joke as obvious as the next. The supporting characters who are only there to embarrass themselves (I'm looking at you Mrs. Bernhardt). And the flimsy comparison this film is receiving to Taxi Driver is downright embarrassing. This doesn't deserve to piss on the shadow of Scorsese's film (though judging by the level of crudeness this has to offer, that's exactly what it would choose to do). This film had next to nothing of value.

[Watashi]

I hate Napoleon Dynamite. This film is nothing like it.

[Sycophant]

I would say this film is actually kind of the anti-Napoleon Dynamite if I wanted to take the time to defend that statement.

I really didn't see this film as a comedy, even though I laughed in a few places.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The film is nothing like it, but the way the film treats its characters is exactly like it.

[Ezee E]

Hmm K-Fan is on to something there, despite his wrong rating.

[eternity]

This was far more conventional than I was expecting. I was expecting things to be a lot sicker, a lot more morally skewed. Ronnie's not even that bad of a guy, not enough so to where it's being looked into and evaluated this deeply.

[number8]

The film is nothing like it, but the way the film treats its characters is exactly like it.
I don't get it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I don't get it.

Every character serves as an excuse for a lame, crude joke. There's no more depth to Ronnie than there is to Napoleon. They're the butt of a series of jokes for the audience to laugh at. Nothing more. They do the most unreasonable thing you can think at every turn. There's no sense in any of them, even the detectives.

[number8]

Every character serves as an excuse for a lame, crude joke. There's no more depth to Ronnie than there is to Napoleon. They're the butt of a series of jokes for the audience to laugh at. Nothing more. They do the most unreasonable thing you can think at every turn. There's no sense in any of them, even the detectives.

This is not the movie I watched.

[Pop Trash]

I'm fucking stunned that you guys liked this. Just stunned. This was so unbelievably bad. All of you who enjoyed this movie are the same people who enjoyed Napoleon Dynamite, right? Because this movie treated its characters with the same amount of derision. Every character was the butt of one lame joke after another, with each joke as obvious as the next. The supporting characters who are only there to embarrass themselves (I'm looking at you Mrs. Bernhardt). And the flimsy comparison this film is receiving to Taxi Driver is downright embarrassing. This doesn't deserve to piss on the shadow of Scorsese's film (though judging by the level of crudeness this has to offer, that's exactly what it would choose to do). This film had next to nothing of value.

Wait...aren't you one of the ardent defenders of Burn After Reading and Tropic Thunder? Couldn't you say the same thing about those movies?

[Kurosawa Fan]

Wait...aren't you one of the ardent defenders of Burn After Reading and Tropic Thunder? Couldn't you say the same thing about those movies?

Yes. Though it's less hypocritical than it appears. In both cases, there are sympathetic characters to fall back on, or to give balance. With Tropic Thunder it's Jay Baruchel. With Burn After Reading, I think Richard Jenkins, and even Frances McDormand to a lesser degree, humanize the film. Plus I think Burn After Reading has a depth to it that Observe and Report doesn't. Not to say the latter is nothing but crude jokes, but it was a much more shallow experience for me. Burn After Reading set out to tackle much more, and for the most part succeeded wonderfully.

With Tropic Thunder, it's simply a case of the film hitting the right notes with its attempts at humor, something Observe and Report failed to do. Those flimsy characters are more excusable if the comedy is spot-on.

[Melville]

All of you who enjoyed this movie are the same people who enjoyed Napoleon Dynamite, right? Because this movie treated its characters with the same amount of derision. Every character was the butt of one lame joke after another
I haven't seen Observe and Report, nor do I intend to, given how irritated I am by Rogen and his gurgling line delivery, but I don't understand this criticism of Napoleon Dynamite. I never thought the movie was derisive toward its characters. They were ridiculous and kind of pathetic, but I thought the movie was sympathetic toward them. I laughed at their absurdities in their deadpan world, but I was laughing in commiseration with them, not mockingly. Doesn't the ending make clear that we are supposed to like the characters rather than deride them?

[Kurosawa Fan]

I think Napoleon Dynamite tries to have it's cake and eat it too. It's trying to be sympathetic in the end, but I have a hard time believing you weren't laughing at their expense during the first two-thirds. You weren't laughing at Uncle Rico when he was recording himself throwing the football or selling tupperware, just with him? You were never laughing at Chip or Napoleon in any of the things they did? Or Pedro? You say yourself they're pathetic, and that serves the humor of the film. The filmmakers base the humor around their pathetic actions for most of the film, and then give them a bit of redemption at the end. But that doesn't mean they were trying to make the audience laugh at their character's expense.

EDIT: Perhaps derision is too strong a word for what I'm trying to express.

[Melville]

I think Napoleon Dynamite tries to have it's cake and eat it too. It's trying to be sympathetic in the end, but I have a hard time believing you weren't laughing at their expense during the first two-thirds. You weren't laughing at Uncle Rico when he was recording himself throwing the football or selling tupperware, just with him? You were never laughing at Chip or Napoleon in any of the things they did? Or Pedro? You say yourself they're pathetic, and that serves the humor of the film. The filmmakers base the humor around their pathetic actions for most of the film, and then give them a bit of redemption at the end. But that doesn't mean they were trying to make the audience laugh at their character's expense.
I can honestly say that I never laughed at any of the characters in a mocking or derisive way. I laughed at them in the same way I laugh at the characters in Peanuts—with sympathy for their awkwardness and their dashed dreams. They point to the absurdity and sad comedy of human beings. I felt the same way about the characters in Burn After Reading: I laughed at them precisely because I could understand their failings as particularly human and sympathetic. (Not that Napoleon Dynamite is half as good as Peanuts or Burn After Reading.) I don't think playing off their absurdity to generate humor requires a work of art to have a derisive tone; in the case of Napoleon Dynamite, I thought the humor was generated mostly by the deadpan style that contrasts the characters with a completely indifferent world.

Also, I just generally like and sympathize with ridiculous and pathetic characters.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I can honestly say that I never laughed at any of the characters in a mocking or derisive way. I laughed at them in the same way I laugh at the characters in Peanuts—with sympathy for their awkwardness and their dashed dreams. They point to the absurdity and sad comedy of human beings. I felt the same way about the characters in Burn After Reading: I laughed at them precisely because I could understand their failings as particularly human and sympathetic. (Not that Napoleon Dynamite is half as good as Peanuts or Burn After Reading.) I don't think playing off their absurdity to generate humor requires a work of art to have a derisive tone; in the case of Napoleon Dynamite, I thought the humor was generated mostly by the deadpan style that contrasts the characters with a completely indifferent world.

Also, I just generally like and sympathize with ridiculous and pathetic characters.

I guess the difference in our views is that there's a line that can be crossed where the characters no longer feel sympathetic, they just feel like the butt of constant jokes, and I felt Napoleon Dynamite crossed that line.

[Melville]

I guess the difference in our views is that there's a line that can be crossed where the characters no longer feel sympathetic, they just feel like the butt of constant jokes, and I felt Napoleon Dynamite crossed that line.
Fair.

[Ivan Drago]

I was one of the few who was laughing throughout the whole movie, among the many shocked people who weren't sure if they should laugh or not.

I was one of the shocked people. I DO want to see this again though.

[D_Davis]

One of the reasons I love ND so much is that it is a comedy that doesn't rely on cussing and sexual innuendo to deliver its laughs.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Observe & Report (Hill, 2009) 27

I need thoughts. Immediately.

[Derek]

I need thoughts. Immediately.

This was one of those films where I actually felt embarrassed for the actors as I watched them. I did appreciate that it was willing to go into a darker territory than most comedies, but that seemed to be it's raison d'etre and unlike, oh say, the Coen Bros., Jody Hill has absolutely no visual panache or narrative control. It's a neverending series of unfunny gags (let's try to set the record for the most screen time for a fat, middle aged man's penis!) and one-note characters (latino with a lisp to bring the lulz) that mistakes portraying its protagonist as increasingly delusional for an actual character study. Had I laughed more than once or twice through the entire film, I could be a little easier on it, but most of the time I was perplexed at how anyone would find any of it amusing or clever.

[Kurosawa Fan]

This was one of those films where I actually felt embarrassed for the actors as I watched them. I did appreciate that it was willing to go into a darker territory than most comedies, but that seemed to be it's raison d'etre and unlike, oh say, the Coen Bros., Jody Hill has absolutely no visual panache or narrative control. It's a neverending series of unfunny gags (let's try to set the record for the most screen time for a fat, middle aged man's penis!) and one-note characters (latino with a lisp to bring the lulz) that mistakes portraying its protagonist as increasingly delusional for an actual character study. Had I laughed more than once or twice through the entire film, I could be a little easier on it, but most of the time I was perplexed at how anyone would find any of it amusing or clever.

I love you.

[Wryan]

This was one of those films where I actually felt embarrassed for the actors as I watched them. I did appreciate that it was willing to go into a darker territory than most comedies, but that seemed to be it's raison d'etre and unlike, oh say, the Coen Bros., Jody Hill has absolutely no visual panache or narrative control. It's a neverending series of unfunny gags (let's try to set the record for the most screen time for a fat, middle aged man's penis!) and one-note characters (latino with a lisp to bring the lulz) that mistakes portraying its protagonist as increasingly delusional for an actual character study. Had I laughed more than once or twice through the entire film, I could be a little easier on it, but most of the time I was perplexed at how anyone would find any of it amusing or clever.

Hilarious that this is exactly how I felt watching the trailer. Now I feel particularly vindicated. Hoo-rah.

[Ezee E]

Watched it again. Still like it a ton.

[Adam]

Yeah, I liked this, too

Biggest cinematic laugh of the year for me so far is the split second delay on Anna Faris' face right when she's looking at that sloppy guy with the tiny cock. I totally agree on Jody Hill's lack of directiong chops, though, and it's clearest in Eastbound and Down. David Gordon Green's episodes of EB & D are these darkly comic masterstrokes on the level of the UK Office, but then the ones helmed by Hill and Adam McKay are complete let-downs. Probably not a coincidence. Either way, I do still like both Observe & Report and The Foot Fist Way

[Bosco B Thug]

Observe and Report was another "special" movie. Like Ti West with The Roost, director Hill shows he very much knows what he's doing... but he doesn't really know what he's doing. He's clearly one of those writer-director types who meticulously visualizes his movie and goes all the way with big, showy set pieces. But he doesn't know how to put a film together. There are too many showy dips into hyper-expressionistic morsels of filmmaking, which you can notice by either a blast of the Various Artists soundtrack or use of slo-mo, or both together. The Hangover seemed to thread things together better than this film...

Anyway, those morsels are often very funny - the slow zoom-in into Faris' drugged tigress look during the date scene, Rogen macking on Faris with the bike helmet on, the Oldboy fight (the film's high point) - or even kinda, obviously artful - the dreamy final kiss, the film's use of the mall's landscape - but plot and direction fall by the wayside.

As for the film being about something, all the implications are there, but I didn't feel any of it coming through. Rogen, Faris (hilarious), Liotta, and the girl who plays Nell are very good, though.

[Rowland]

He's clearly one of those writer-director types who meticulously visualizes his movie and goes all the way with big, showy set pieces..Really? I haven't seen this yet, so your observation here surprises me, given that I have seen Hill's first movie, The Foot Fist Way, which I found visually repellent.

[Bosco B Thug]

Really? I haven't seen this yet, so your observation here surprises me, given that I have seen Hill's first movie, The Foot Fist Way, which I found visually repellent. Haven't seen that film, but O&R's pretty polished and gussied up, cinematography-wise, in the same way most Hollywood comedies are.

But I watched a trailer to 'Foot Fist Way,' and it seems to similarly trade in using colorful backdrops to some visually heightened degree, which is part of the "I'm a director-director!" thing I see in him, that unfortunately doesn't result in a completely successful film.

[Ezee E]

Really? I haven't seen this yet, so your observation here surprises me, given that I have seen Hill's first movie, The Foot Fist Way, which I found visually repellent.
Jody Hill improved significantly from his first movie to O&R. A real budget probably helped.

[Rowland]

Jody Hill improved significantly from his first movie to O&R. A real budget probably helped.Even with an improved budget, the evidence I have suggests the guy's visual sensibilities are shit. Granted, that could have been a conscious choice of his, to make The Foot Fist Way look like a tossed-off youtube video, or better yet, one of the shitty DTV movies starring the never-was stars the protag admired so much, which may be an interesting notion in theory, but it doesn't make the movie anymore likable. That was one seriously unpleasant movie.

[Ezee E]

Even with an improved budget, the evidence I have suggests the guy's visual sensibilities are shit. Granted, that could have been a conscious choice of his, to make The Foot Fist Way look like a tossed-off youtube video, or better yet, one of the shitty DTV movies starring the never-was stars the protag admired so much, which may be an interesting notion in theory, but it doesn't make the movie anymore likable. That was one seriously unpleasant movie.
Well, I actually have seen O&R, and can say that they still improved.

[Rowland]

Well, I actually have seen O&R, and can say that they still improved.I didn't mean to suggest I knew any better than you, I was only using that as another excuse to rag on The Foot Fist Way some more.

[StanleyK]

This is basically a heavily watered down version of Taxi Driver. I'm surprised by all the people saying it was shocking; I think from the opening and his TV interview it was pretty obvious where it was going (crazy man on a power trip). It doesn't have any larger implications like Scorsese's film; not insightful, and not really very funny.

[MadMan]

I thought it was good, and um, interesting, to say the least. Perhaps the most notable thing about it is that Seth Rogan plays a scummy, un-remorseful asshole sociopath who thinks too highly of himself. Normally he plays nice guys.

It was fairly hilarious in certain parts, most notably Rogan fighting a gazillion cops, which I'm pretty sure was a spoof of that famous Neo v. the Smiths fight in Matrix Reloaded.

Whether or not the last act is a dream or not really doesn't strike me as important. Because Rogan's character is already delusional, and therefore living in his own silly fantasy world. Hell you could make the argument that the entire movie isn't real, although I don't see the argument for it.

[number8]

Rogen and Hill said that fight is actually their tribute to Oldboy.

[MadMan]

Rogen and Hill said that fight is actually their tribute to Oldboy.Oh, okay. I know what that fight is, even though I haven't seen Oldboy.

[number8]

You haven't seen Oldboy? You fucking fascist.

[Skitch]

Oh, okay. I know what that fight is, even though I haven't seen Oldboy.

That would be pretty damn high on my "List of movies I wish I could see for the first time again".

[MadMan]

Eh, I'll get around to it eventually :P

[Dukefrukem]

and to wrap up my 3 movie Friday.. this was a lot better than I was expecting it to be. Laughed quite a bit.