Upcoming
November 14
A Christmas Tale
B.O.H.I.C.A.
House of the Sleeping Beauties
How About You
November 21
The Betrayal
November 30
Galumph Note
Forgetting Sarah Marshall's Jason Segel "is a big guy, handsome in a slightly sappy way," New Yorker critic David Denby observes. In a bygone age, a major New York critic calling an actor "slightly sappy" might have condemned him to supporting actor status or even obscurity, but in today's movie-comedy world, aesthetically reconfigured by producer Judd Apatow, this may not be the case.
(l. to .r.) Mila Kunis, Jason Segel, Russell Brand and Kristen Bell (illustration: Hope Gangloff)
"He's naked at the beginning of the movie, when Sarah arrives home to dump him, and naked at the very end of it. Peter is incapable of concealing anything; he has no vanity, but he's a bit of a lazy boy, potatoing on the couch in Los Angeles when he's not working. Segel is extremely gentle, and his puzzlement has comic possibilities, but he's not quite an actor yet. He loses focus; his jaw goes slack, and his eyes register bewilderment.
"In Hawaii, Peter is humiliated a lot: he falls off a cliff, he can't stand up on a surfboard, and so on. All this ineptitude is supposed to be endearing, but moviegoers want a romantic hero with some sex appeal and some strength, and Segel's harmless routine wears us out.
"Part of the problem is that his director, Nicholas Stoller, doesn't shape the scenes decisively. He abandons Segel and doesn't get a clearly defined performance out of Kristen Bell (from TV's Veronica Mars and Heroes). She's short and blond, with a very bright smile, and she comes off as hard-edged and self-centered in some scenes and truthful in others, and we never get a bead on her. It's not hard, it turns out, to forget Sarah Marshall. The problem is remembering her."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on April 16, 2008 at 8:16 AM
comment #1
calraigh
says ...
Yet you mention nothing about Brand's performance which, in every review I've read of this supposed damp squib, in your eyes, is the only one that has been singled out for exemplary comedic praise.He's hilarious in the movie.He was on Leno last week and was hilarious and TRL yesterday and he took over the show.To be honest I could care less about Segel but I will go and see this film for Brand's performance alone.
Posted by calraigh
at April 16, 2008 9:03 AM
comment #2
DavidF
says ...
Segel is another guy I loved on Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared. The scenes in Knocked Up where he was hitting on Leslie Mann were awesome.
that said, I don't have such high hopes for this flick. I expect it to be better than Drillbit Taylor but not in the league of Superbad, 40YOV etc.
Posted by DavidF
at April 16, 2008 9:26 AM
comment #3
corey3rd
says ...
Why is the director getting all the blamed for elements of the film that don't work? Jason Segel wrote the script - although everyone will claim that Judd Apatow rewrote it all before the cameras rolled.
If a scene clunks, Jason Segel didn't do his work as a writer and as an actor. It's a Judd Apatow film, we all know that the director is an expandable resource on the set.
Posted by corey3rd
at April 16, 2008 9:33 AM
comment #4
Jay T.
says ...
Because sometimes you can't really tell if a scene falls flat until you shoot it on film... which is why at the end of the day director's get so much credit, so when it doesn't work they should get the blame as well.
Posted by Jay T.
at April 16, 2008 10:12 AM
comment #5
christian
says ...
Maybe a more interesting piece could be done on why these women the galumphs end up with are supposed to be so worthy.
None strike me as anymore evolved or amazing than than the men they're with. I mean, an E! reporter is some kind of find?
Posted by christian
at April 16, 2008 10:31 AM
comment #6
Richardson
says ...
Because a director is the one who's supposed to watch the performances to make sure they're working, and to suggest or request changes to the script if things aren't working. The actor can't be impartial and if he's also the writer, then the writer can't be impartial either.
"It's a Judd Apatow film, we all know that the director is an expandable resource on the set."
Anybody who could say something like this obviously doesn't understand the first thing about improvisational comedy.
Posted by Richardson
at April 16, 2008 10:33 AM
comment #7
christian
says ...
Let me put it another way. The golden idealized women in Apatow's film are exactly the women I avoid in Los Angeles. Y'know, shiksas.
Posted by christian
at April 16, 2008 10:50 AM
comment #8
renorambler
says ...
I'm thrilled that Kristen Bell is getting a good spot in what should be a big feature film. Unfortunately it is sounding like the editor/director/writer(?) have done her a disservice in not giving her character room to breathe. She's a fine actress and deserves a shot at real stardom. I'm a little bored with the Apatow aesthetic but might see this just for her.
Posted by renorambler
at April 16, 2008 10:59 AM
comment #9
vp19
says ...
It doesn't matter what a New Yorker critic thinks, like it or not. Judd Apatow is a brand name now, almost a Tyler Perry for Caucasian slackers.
Posted by vp19
at April 16, 2008 11:25 AM
comment #10
Rich S.
says ...
And on a completely unrelated note (though also one of Jeffrey's obsessions), the new X-Files movie has now taken the poll in the "What were they thinking?" title chase:
X-Files: I Want to Believe (as reported in the Orlando Sentinel)
Posted by Rich S.
at April 16, 2008 12:10 PM
comment #11
corey3rd
says ...
Anybody who could say something like this obviously doesn't understand the first thing about improvisational comedy
so now you're demeaning Segel's script as so worthless that they just faked it all in front of the camera. All a director on an Apatow film has to do is clear his shot list with Judd and then shoot enough takes so that Judd and his editor can make something out of it in post that can be declared "From the Makers of Knocked Up and Super Bad!" Unless you're under the belief that Apatow hands these directors a script, film and a cast and says, "Go get me some funny!"
A director is ultimately the lamest person on the set since his weaknesses can be covered up by the talent of others.
Posted by corey3rd
at April 16, 2008 12:36 PM
comment #12
Jay T.
says ...
"A director is ultimately the lamest person on the set since his weaknesses can be covered up by the talent of others."
Oh man, I couldn't disagree more. While I think writers don't get nearly enough credit when it comes to movies, I've definitely seen movies that were only good instead of great because the director didn't handle the sript very well. It certainly makes a difference. Likewise, there's a number of movies where the strong direction helped to make up for a weaker script.
Posted by Jay T.
at April 16, 2008 1:09 PM
comment #13
Terry McCarty
says ...
I'm now having flashbacks to a TV GUIDE interview with John Forsythe where he made a peeved comment about "Dustin Hoffman and all the stars who look like bartenders."
Posted by Terry McCarty
at April 16, 2008 1:19 PM
comment #14
calraigh
says ...
Rich S: It's the perfect movie title in my opinion, it's the poster for chrissakes!!It sums up the ideology behind the X-Files and putting 2 and 2 together is probably a huge clue as to the theme of the movie.Give me this any day over the ingenious 'Speed Racer' , 'Iron Man' or 'Indiana Jones 4:Blah blah blah'.
Posted by calraigh
at April 16, 2008 1:32 PM
comment #15
actionman
says ...
I agree with you Calraigh, the title for the new X-Files movie is perfect.
Posted by actionman
at April 16, 2008 1:43 PM
comment #16
The Hoyk
says ...
The golden idealized women in Apatow's film are exactly the women I avoid in Los Angeles. Y'know, shiksas.
Shiksa-bashing? That's not very Christian of you, Christian. :)
Posted by The Hoyk
at April 16, 2008 2:03 PM
comment #17
corey3rd
says ...
You can fire the director halfway through a production and have the AD & DP take over the production without any critic knowing the difference. I worked on a film that played New Directors New Films and the director (whom the NY Times praised) was nothing more than on screen talent. Half the time we shot without him being near the location. He was thrown out of the editing room so we could salvage the production. But since this loser appears in the film and his name was listed as director, the loser at the NY Times decided that this guy has talent. That he was responsible for a film that was basically made in spite of his talent.
There's more than a bad director responsible for a bad movie. A lot of people have to suck for a film to truly stink. For a majority of movies - it's a team sport.
Far as improvising goes. that whole "Dinner for one" schtick appears to have been stolen word for word from a comic's routine who used to always appear on Comedy Centrals' Short Attention Span Theater. name of the guy escapes me, but the whole bit is swiped to the extreme.
Posted by corey3rd
at April 16, 2008 2:38 PM
comment #18
corey3rd
says ...
You can fire the director halfway through a production and have the AD & DP take over the production without any critic knowing the difference. I worked on a film that played New Directors New Films and the director (whom the NY Times praised) was nothing more than on screen talent. Half the time we shot without him being near the location. He was thrown out of the editing room so we could salvage the production. But since this loser appears in the film and his name was listed as director, the loser at the NY Times decided that this guy has talent. That he was responsible for a film that was basically made in spite of his talent.
There's more than a bad director responsible for a bad movie. A lot of people have to suck for a film to truly stink. For a majority of movies - it's a team sport.
Far as improvising goes. that whole "Dinner for one" schtick appears to have been stolen word for word from a comic's routine who used to always appear on Comedy Centrals' Short Attention Span Theater. name of the guy escapes me, but the whole bit is swiped to the extreme.
Posted by corey3rd
at April 16, 2008 2:39 PM
comment #19
dinovelvet
says ...
Oh no, Russell Brand is in this? Just say no, America. Seriously, we can't let this guy get his foot in the door over here. You might find his act charming for a few minutes, but just wait until he starts becoming ubiquitous...you'll all be begging for the glory days of Dane Cook!
Posted by dinovelvet
at April 16, 2008 4:43 PM
comment #20
bill
says ...
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
welcome to wealthykiss dot co m!
Posted by bill
at April 16, 2008 7:06 PM
comment #21
Jay T.
says ...
Wow... Bill, you've convinced me -- I'm going to go get myself a trophy wife at wealthykiss dot com -- THANKS!
Posted by Jay T.
at April 17, 2008 8:54 AM
Post a comment