Get Him to the Greek review

Movie spin-offs work about as often as television spin-offs. As great as the people in and behind them are usually they just don't work out the way they're supposed to. A lot of times it's due to the massive lack of effort put fourth by the creators because they feel like they've got their fan basis so what does it matter. Other times it's just things not clinging together well. Fortunately "Get Him to the Greek" aka Aldous Snow from "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" gets his own movie is part of the few spin-offs that does work well. I'll say it's not as good as it's leaping point film, but they aren't the same types of comedies either.

A big part of why "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" was so good was because it was first and foremost a romantic comedy that was both sweet and nastily funny. It attempted to lampoon everything about celebrity and celebrity relationships while still creating an ensemble group of memorable characters that tired to deal with the situation in a fairly realistic manner. "Get Him to the Greek" at it's core like a rock n roll excess film in which Jonah Hill's Aaron Green character must go through hell and back in transport his idol Aldous Snow to the Greek theater in L.A. for an anniversary concert which could easily revive his fading career. We get to learn a lot about Aldous' music, family, relationships and lifestyle which leads to scenes of utter and out of control hilarity and surprising moments of conviction in which he discusses his long spanning trouble with drugs. What's more interesting is when they attempt to blur those two things and try both in the same scene. It's kind of half and half.

I've read about a half a dozen reviews for the film and one thing I keep noticing is that people have been picking out who makes the movie. That's something I highly disagree with because like in 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' I felt ALL the characters help shape the picture. Hill plays (for a change) the straight man and actually manages to kill it and at times out shine Brand who works hard to be the center of funny. I'm not saying Russell Brand isn't funny (cause he damn sure is), but there's a lot of sharing going around with the others performers. I will also say that indeed Sean 'P. Diddy' Combs does steal a number of scenes. As a music and business mogul I don't care for him, but as an actor... I've got to say he's impressed me. Between this, "Monster's Ball" and the remake of "A Raisin in the Sun", Diddy's got range. Elisabeth Moss as Hill's doctor girlfriend is the un-sung hero I feel. She works hard to be a likable, sweet and kind of realistic character in Aaron's now maddening world of rock excess that he's trying to escape. And finally Rose Byrne who I don't think I've ever seen in a comedy, plays Snow's former girlfriend (or wife, I'm not entirely sure) model and singer Jackie Q. You might remember Byrne from a number of dramas including FX's "Damages", "Wicker Park" and "28 Weeks Later". It's great seeing her cut loose a bit and doing something very much unlike her normal fair and as it turns out she's fucking great at lampooning atypical posh, UK female musicians.

I have to say between this and "Splice" the weekend of June 4th has been pretty damn good. Writer-director Nicolas Stroller is one of the few Apatow backed directors that appears to have a greater sense of style about him, that could and probably will carry him much further. It certainly takes the film further and creates something great to look at even when a few of the jokes don't fly as well. The songs and the writing are still fantastic here and this cast is pitch perfect to every scene. Really with all the shit comedies out right now (looking at you 'Macgruber' and 'Sex and the City 2') here is finally a one that lives up to it's potential and provides numerous tear inducing scenes of hilarity in a great looking package. Perhaps finally the summer season is churning out something better than what we've been seeing.

Splice review

What is happening in the cinema world right now is fucking awesome. Despite all the massive, massive amounts of crap being tossed out there and the usual junk food pictures there is people at work attempting to revive the science fiction and horror genres. Some of these people you know like Oscar nominated filmmaker Neil Blomkamp of "District 9" or Duncan Jones of "Moon". However some have been hard at work attempting to bring us smart and original ideas for a while. People like Vincenzo Natali. Natali created "Cube" in the late 90's; a Kafka-like psychological science fiction picture about people trapped in a giant cubic puzzle. After that he somewhat disappeared only really popping up once more on my radar for his directed piecein "Paris Je T'aime" which was among my favorites. All the while he was cracking the story that would eventually become "Splice".

Is it really horror? Not by the conventional thought of stuff jumping out and all that, but instead something very, VERY close to his and executive producer Guillermo Del Toro's feelings on horror, science and monsters. Del Toro is well known for of course the "Hellboy" films and "Pan's Labyrinth" however people tend to forget his bizarre vampire tale "Cronos" (which is getting the Criterion treatment soon), the war ghost story "The Devil's Backbone" or his homage to Universal movie monster favorite "The Mummy", his mega roach monster film "Mimic". Aside from that the man is a fucking Cronenberg junkie and obviously Natali is as well; something very evident here.

What the film is really about is Clive (Adrian Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley), a rock star bioengineering team who have cracked DNA splicing and want to step it up a notch. So they do. From dealing with animal DNA, to tossing in some human DNA and the result is Dren. Clive fears what they've created and often speaks of destroying it however Elsa continuously reminds him of all that they could learn from her and eventually come to possibly love their creation. Dren is genetically a dozen different animals which allows from some fun and mildly tense sequences of discovery involved them dealing with her. But like most mad scientist creations something goes pretty wrong. Dren ages quickly and within a few months she appears to be in her mid twenties. She's tired of being cooped up in basements, labs and barns and wants out and that's the last thing Elsa or Clive want. Also as time progresses more and more is learned about her genetics as well as subtle hints about one of the character's childhood. For me much of what happens near the end of the second act play strongly into the things we are never told about this character's past and family life and why they might act the way they do.

"Splice" then uses it's final act to go for the gut and go out there. Creepily out there with stuff you've definitely not seen in modern horror. My friends we have entered Cronenberg-land. It's a wonderful place full of bizarre, skin crawling things that play more into ideas and morals and less into just straight gore. In fact there isn't much gore in the film at all, but it does warrent it's R-rating. I dare not spoil anything major and really do ask people to give this a shot, especially if you profess to like sci-fi movies or horror movies. Nowadays we mainly get remakes, torture porn or straight forward gore pictures. It's rare to find original, intelligent, disturbing horror pieces that don't need to relay on half-assed tricks to get viewers. Granted A LOT of people will probably not like this film, but that's honestly because they've promoted this to seem very much like a basic horror film and that's what they want to see. Those viewers are the reason we have so many damn "Saw" films in the world. No taste for the truly bizarre and disturbing, just for mindless gore and stupid traps. Let me just say that Cronenberg's "The Brood" is smarter and creepier than any of the "Saw" pictures.

I know I could repeat that last bit over and over again till my fingers bleed, but it's the truth and honestly I know this film won't to be major success. It's too strange for mainstream audiences that want movies like lunch meat. They want simplicity, easy understanding and whatever is the flavor of the month aka funny zombie movies. Being a horror fan it does piss me off to high heavens, but fuck all I can do about it. All I can say is that "Splice" goes to places few horror movies go to anymore and has fun with it. It's not a heavy-handed morality tale of why you shouldn't play God and it's not a brainless monster movie. It's "Frankenstein" mixed with "Cronos" with a scoop of "Dead Ringers".

Sex and the City 2 review

As we return to the world of "Sex and the City", the highly successful book series, television series and now film series I'd like to note that yes as a young male this film is NOT geared towards me or my demographic. I'd also like to comment that I have watched various episodes of the show and did in fact watch and review the first film so I'm not unknown to this world and these characters. With the first film we leaped into the life of Carrie Bradshaw and and her gal pals as they bitched over a span of two years about the problems they were having with the men in their lives until they all finally pretty much realize that several of the issues were caused by themselves and their neglect, ignorance or idiocy. After resolving all their past issues (which were boring and pretty damn nonsensical) Carrie and "Mr. Big" get married and that was that.

So now we meet the girls again two and half years later for "Sex and the City 2" where Carrie and Big's marriage has lost it's spark. All he wants to do is sit at home and watch black and white movies while bathing in Old Spice and all she wants to do is to graze out under the stars every night. Samantha Jones aka Skank-o-tron 1000 is in full swing popping two fists full of pills to keep from looking like the Crypt keeper while still managing to go about the planet fucking anything that moves. (thanks Dennis Hopper, we'll miss ya) Charlotte is having a break down because she can't get control of her possibly retarded children that either continuously cry or fight tooth and nail to get some of mommy's precious attention. And then there's Miranda the walking corpse, whose googly-wide eyes, bleached white skin, flaming red slicked back hair and tiny Irish teeth could scare anyone better than the best Hollywood effects artist creation. Oh... yeah she's supposed to have a problem right? Hold on.... oh yeah, her male boss didn't like her cause she was a woman and all so she quit and started working with a bunch of happy hippie lawyers and then she was happy again. Spoiler alert.

But let's hop into the real meat of this film. Here is Michael Patrick King's second 'SitC' picture that is just as painfully long (146 minutes, longer than "Robin Hood") as the first film, but manages to be unfunny, borderline disgusting and yes pretty racist and insensitive. While I'm not going into this looking for well written humor (actually I'm going in to make up the humor with my friends, mission accomplished by the way), I would expect something clever or witty to slip out of one of these walking 'What Not to Where' promos. Instead we're treated to some of the out and out lamest ass jokes you could hear in modern cinema. I mean just hand in your face lame. The opening sequence which was a gay wedding decided to go as over the top as they probably could until they send it ONE STEP FURTHER by having the God of the gay men Liza Minelli sing a Beyonce song. That was the first scene in which I had my head in my hands... the first of many.

As we continue into that slow, steady descent into shitsville we head around the world to Abu Dhabi where the girls are on a free vacation of complete and utter vomit inducing decadence. I mean the fucking money these wee-brains spent while on this trip would really make you a bit sick to your stomach. At one point Carrie's hotel shadow aka paid slave tells her about how his wife lives in India and every three months they have enough money to see one another. After telling this to her friends the next morning over an elongated table filled with food, they quickly suggest going on a desert trek and picnic. I could only think about how everything on that table was probably a year of that guy's salary. But seriously what do they care? They've got their own problems like if Charlotte's smiling tub a goo husband is going to cheat on her with her large chested and bra-less Irish nanny. No readers this lovely lass says no, no, no to the shackles of the modern world of female undergarments and thus lets it all swing-a-ding loose. But hell at least she's good with the kids unlike their actual mother.

Honestly it's rare to see a two and half hour film completely filled with nonsensical bullshit. Not even the dreadful "Twilight" movies go as far as to make me just feel depressed watching it. While in the middle east they figure, hey this is the NEW middle east; a world without war, oppression or a super conservative moral code, religious belief system and law structure towards open sexuality so why not just grab on to a dude's erect cock at the hookah table?! This then brings about more sequences of ill done humor and general offensive bad taste. And don't get me wrong, I'm all for offending people but only when it's done for a point. Here, no point... just a bunch of bullshit to get horny older women and impressionable younger women laughing and mildly aroused.

Seriously though this film actually manages that moment where the film hits rock bottom. I've only witnessed this in a few pictures; not all terrible movies have a moments of complete and utter shit where the house of cards comes crashing down and all that is left is a horrible image on screen you'll remember for as long as you see movies. For "Sex and the City 2" it would be Kim Cattrall in the middle of an Abu-Dhabi market air humping in a linebacker like fury while swinging around a sheet of condoms and tossing out the finger like high fives after a Panthers game (ra-Oww!). This then leads to a scene that is equally as ridiculous and idiotic, but without that furious botox rage face and protruding Hulk veins. Really this is a horrible movie and as it stands the worst film of the year. The only plus side to the film is as a cinematic experience it was far funnier than watching "Macgruber".

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time review

I remember when I was first getting hardcore into movies one of the first names I learned was that of producer Jerry Bruckheimer. I've probably mentioned this in past reviews, but I wasn't someone who began to love film via French new wave, the works of Goddard and even smaller power pieces by modern auteurs like Soderbergh. I enjoyed spectacle and things that were exciting to the eye and at least mostly tolerable to the mind.

I feel a bit sad every time I see his name placed on yet another half assed police show or another family geared, mild adventure movie. I remember the days of "Crimson Tide", "The Rock", "Con Air", "Armageddon", "Bad Boys" and "Enemy of the State". Days when he really pulled out all the stops and had hella stylish and original (or at least fairly original) fun with the films he presented. After the mega success of the "Pirates of the Caribbean" films he's chosen to stick with these types of movies (or lower like fucking "G-Force"). Not that I'm a hater of PoTC, but it's not something that has the same glorious excitement as his older work.

Now this is his first video game based property and something that... well... COULD'VE been fun enough to watch; although I've liked NONE of the games older or newer for this, but I see how in film form it could be ok. Instead "Prince of Persia" is a bland bowl of ice cream that's poppy and watchable, but not in the slightest bit memorable or unique or all that fun honestly. I will say that in true Bruckheimer fashion he casts against the usual grain and goes with his proven and usually pretty cool formula. See he picks two fairly un-proven for the genre leads with a film like this. Usually people with good or even great track records and then surrounds them with vets that have done everything under the sun. So we get Jake Gyllenhaal as Daston and Gemma Arterton as Princess Tamina and they're placed along side Sir Ben Kingsley in villain form as usual and Alfred Molina as the comic relief.

They all sell their roles as best they can in this. Gyllenhaal isn't a proven action hero, but he is a proven actor that has a lot of range. Arterton is literally what prompted me to want to see this as I loved her (or loved looking at her) in "Clash of the Titans" and remember her quite well from "RockNRolla" and "Quantum of Solace". Both are really allowed to have fun and play around with their characters, but it's all done in that classical romantic adventure sort of way which is generic and sort of cheesy at times. Which is what people wanted "Robin Hood" to be like. They have chemistry as well and that goes a long way towards making their conversations less cheesy and distracting. The major problems lay with the directing choice and the story they went with. Granted this is based on a video game and this is the first in that version of the series of games, but it's presented in a kind of boring ass way.

Basically the dagger has magic sand in it and it can turn back time and Kingsley and the other bad guys want to get their hands on it. Most of the movie however is a desert trek that's... well... boring? Nah, I'll just say dull; after all there was ostrich racing! Nothing wrong with a little bit of that. (Fingers crossed this leads to Bruckheimer producing a live action version of "Joust") The problem is the fight scenes which are... seemingly well blocked off, are shot with about a billion close up cuts that greatly kills what fun could be in there. Director Mike Newell who did make by favorite Harry Potter film, just doesn't seem cut out for this sort of action setting honestly. The fighting is very much designed around parkour which as we've seen before can be pretty damn cool... but if it's done through 10000000 quick shots, then it's boring. Can I say that Pierre Morell, Martin Campbell or even "District B13: Ultimatum" director Patrick Alessandrin could have been better suited for this job? Yep! And that even with a dull-ish story it might have still been alright.

But alas we end up with another very run-of-the-mill action adventure picture that is better than most video game movies, but still doesn't work anywhere near enough to be called good. At the least people can see that Gyllenhaal is someone who wants to extend his range into more action fair and I think given all the work he put in it will pay off. Arterton is a strong actress that deserves stronger female roles and God willing that will happen for her too. Who knows maybe they'll even be used again in a film worthy of both their talents and looks.

Robin Hood review

Walking into "Robin Hood" this evening I stepped with heavy doubts. Simply put I read bashing after bashing of the film and with them pretty much saying the same things about it both things that were good and things that weren't. After the 148 minutes of crashing, bashing, slashing and galloping I could see why people weren't so loving of Ridley Scott's new epic vision of the birth of a legend however I wasn't one of those people. Granted I can't say I love "Robin Hood", but it was an entertaining and well made adventurous battle movie. And that right there is why it's getting handled this way critically. Is this really a Robin Hood picture as we know it? No. It's maybe... 30% a Robin Hood story. Traditionally Robin Hood films are high, frolicking adventure tales of nobility, honor, friendship and love. Robin is a quirky sort of man that loves causing trouble for those who abuse their authority and harm the good english people for personal profit. He vies for the love of Maid Marian and loves the adventures he has with his merry men. By the way I'm not saying this as some back-handed insult, I think that stuff's great and really feel like there are so few adventure tales told in todays cinema, because not as many people are interested or it's simply done in a very watered down, highly commercialized way as to never stick out too much.

Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood" is about the birth of who that character COULD become given another film or what not. So instead of high adventures and swashbuckling, it's waring, ravaged lands, people being burning alive in houses, grit, grime, crime, corruption and betrayal. On second thought maybe I do kinda love it. The thing of it is (and I REALLY do get this) is that most critics (or at least the ones I read) have a certain expectation of the character and story due to be accompanied with this stuff and as you can see this ain't what's expected. This is a battle movie that at times attempts to bring about the concept of high adventure, but it's never frolicking, it's still brooding. And a heavy thanks to that goes to Russell Crowe, king of the brooding actors. But that's not to say some fun is had here and there. Once in a while he interacts quirky and freely with his men as does he with Marian played by Cate Blanchett. The moments are far between but there are little kick back and relax moments that occur when there is no fighting to be done.

Really the story is about the death of King Richard the Lion Heart, played by Danny Huston and the crowning of the tyrannical and oppressive King John the lying dick wad played by Oscar Isaac. John doesn't really give a damn about the people, just about money and power. Mark Strong plays Godfrey who is secretly working for the French and is bringing them into England to try and take over while Richard and his troops are still at war. Robin and his men fought with their king till his death in which they fled and aimed to get home rich. Well long story short shit gets poppin' and things don't go the way they're planned and now Robin, Marian and the merry men gotta go get badassed up and roll on these jive suckas. Again if you're a lover of the legend, not your cup of tea, however I'm not so in my book that's a simple case of bring on the mayhem. And it's Scott at his best bringing a stylish and grim eye to the battlefields that's still impressive even after seeing his proof that he's the best at this several times before.

Personally when it comes to the stories of Robin Hood I've never been a huge fan. I don't think I find them boring, I just don't find them too interesting. On film I've seen Flynn as Robin (cool, but I preferred 'The Count of Monte Cristo'), Kevin Costner (nice cast, boring as shit movie), Mel Brooks' 'Robin Hood Men in Tights' (which is fairly funny, until compared with other Brooks films in which it doesn't hold a candle) and then Disney's. That last one's probably my favorite and even then I wasn't a grand lover. Oh and that crappy TV show. So for me it's like going in with a blank slate and just hoping to, at the very least be entertained. As a Ridley Scott fan I'll say that visually it's quite a notch in the belt. I wasn't so sure from some of the trailers, but it appears that he went to great lengths to not show case the same landscapes we've been seeing since 'The Lord of the Rings' while also digging back into his stylistic past to present a much more interesting looking color palate. I will say it's biggest flaw is Brian Helgaland's screenplay which is pretty point blank and lacks much of the complicated depth we get in most of Ridley's pictures. It's not one dimensional story by any means, but considering both of their last couple films I would've expected something much more complex than this.

At the end I can say it was a good ride and one of the more rich looking and flowing summer films I've seen thus far. It's not a perfect film either for it's genre or Ridley Scott, but it's like B-Ridley Scott. You know like "Black Rain", "Legend" or "The Duelist". I'd also think it might treat people differently by knowing what kind of picture it is before hand rather than thinking it'll be like all the other Robin Hood films of the past fifty years. It's not that and really it's not a re-tread of "Gladiator" either (still not a big fan of that one by the way), it's more like grim adventure on an epic scale. Now if down the line things worked out and an idea for a sequel made on the concept of the stories we all know, but using this film as the foundation; that would be something interesting to see. I imagine it'd be dark yet still thriving with frolicking adventure. Best of both worlds I think.

Shrek Forever After review

Is "Shrek Forever After" aka The Final Chapter the grand send off for the major animated franchise of the past decade? I'm hoping it is. While this newest installment is nowhere as bleeding tear boring as "Shrek the Third", it still doesn't live up to the glowing originality, humor, wit and intelligence of the first two. This time around the basic construct of Shrek is that of 'It's a Wonderful Life' where Shrek is never born after he gets all bitchy for not feeling like a 'real ogre' anymore. The subtle point at the end being that parenthood ain't easy, but always be thankful for what you've got.

So he signs a contract with Rumpelstiltskin who in turn plays the trading game where Shrek will get his one day of being a feared ogre again for a day he doesn't remember, that ended up being his birth. Awwwww snap, the playa got played! This then takes us down remake road where Shrek has to do basically the same things he did in the first film just with less death and depth. The only way to break the contract is for true loves kiss so he has to find the now warrior queen Fiona and get her to fall in love with him again and along with way re-friend the loud mouthed and only slightly humorous Donkey and the now retired and overweight Puss who isn't bringing in the laughs either, but he's doing a better job than the others. Oh and he has to defeat a small man with a big ego. Ah memories.

Ok, but seriously I don't hate this film. In fact I don't really dislike it, but it doesn't do anything for me. "Shrek Forever After" is 100% forgettable. Like "The Rocker"! You watch it, you shrug it off then you eat and go about the rest of your day. Nothing in this film is funny, but nothing is so blatantly unfunny as to make me hate it. Thus I'm not having to re-watch "How to Train Your Dragon" which is a film that I STILL go over and think of just how annoying and headache inducing those terrible jokes were and how tired I am of the overly cartoony and uninspired designs being used in a lot of these movies. Oh and don't get me started on Baruchel's fucking voice. Instead this final chapter plays is safe and does things that work to move along the fairly weak little story while not carrying on too long or throwing in too much.

I will say that the multitude of pop culture song uses have worn out their welcome and at this point it's like watching an episode of "Cold Case" and seeing what oldie they've got headlining this weeks episode. So what comes next in the animated world? I have zero interest in Universal's "Despicable Me", which MIGHT have been just a mediocre idea until they decided to turn it into complete junk by giving him kids to take care of. There's "Toy Story 3" of course which will probably be alright as most Pixar movies are, but I doubt it'll send us forward in anyway. And then to round out the ones being pushed now and that HAVE a chance to be something (that's right "Alpha and Omega", you look like shit, sound like shit and probably are shit) is "Megamind" which is basically a lot like the plot of "Despicable Me", but without kids and with a better cast including Brad Pitt. In anycase I don't feel like any of these will recapture that special something the first "Shrek" had. That certain kick that the animation world needed where they didn't think kids just wanted pop culture references and silly jokes, but that they could understand at least some form of satire and parody.

MacGruber review

You know I talked a lot of shit about "MacGruber" before it's release, but there was heavy praise from critics as well as from advanced viewers I started thinking that despite the lackluster trailers and my general lack of love for comedian Will Forte and this SNL skit that I could be quite surprised and delighted in the glorious R-rated humor and excitement of all that is "MacGruber". And you know what? It didn't happen. Not for one second of this steaming pile of fecal matter did I feel like I was enjoying myself. So to the critic whom stated "The Best SNL Movie since "Wayne's World", you sir or madam are an idiot.

To summarize MacGruber is an idiotic former Marine who can basically do what MacGyver did on tv and also tends to dress and carry himself in a similar manner by keeping a 1980s mindset while in the modern world. On the other hand he also fucks everything up as constantly as possible while [SPOILER ALERT] still defeating the bad guy played by Val Kilmer [END] who killed his wife and has now stolen a nuclear warhead that he plans to blow up Washington D.C. with. I wanna first deal with why this sucks quite as much balls as it does. On the surface one could simply call the movie boring and forgettable because honestly it is but certain things have an ability to work. Kristen Wiig who plays MacGruber's love interest and partner Vicki St. Elmo is never really let to have too much fun, because she's forced to play straight-ish second fiddle to whatever bullshit Forte does. But there are one of two moments for her that really work. Both Kilmer and Powers Boothe (who plays Col. Faith) could sell just about anything on their worst day and here they try to make the most of what they've got. And Ryan Phillippe, God bless him even pulls off the dumbest of moments kind of well. The major huge annoyance of the movie is sadly enough star and co-writer Will Forte.

Basically the man jumps around, tries to impersonate action heroes and makes really, really, REALLY bad jokes the entire film. The only scene that works for him his a sex scene between him and St. Elmo and even that is made better due to it's editing. Beyond that he's just on one long ass running joke that no one finds funny except maybe himself. And I'm not saying this because I'm not a fan of the dude. He's no Ashton Kutcher to where I cringe even at the thought of him getting another movie, I just don't think he's that funny most of the time. He's like David Spade, with the right people around him and the right writing he can be pretty damn ok, but without it he sucks the big one.

The film is actually quite comparable with another powerfully weak action, comedy for this year, Kevin Smith's "Cop Out". And while both films work to try and kill the genre by created some really, really lame ass low brow jokes that never ever work, I can at least say SOME of "MacGruber" has action scenes that look nice. Mainly the opening scene which involves little to no action, but it's shot damn well after a bloody ambush had taken place in the desert. "MacGruber" is directed and co-written by Jorma Taccone, one of the members of The Lonely Island, which for my money has big hits and nice sized misses. He was also a big part of Andy Samberg's big one piece "Hot Rod" which I still have fond memories of, but by no means is it a great comedy. In fact its humor and style is lodged way up the butt of "Napoleon Dynamite", but it's was still kind of funny.

Now to what could've made this crapsterpice work. Something I've remembered since the Coen's "Burn After Reading" was that it proved once and for all you don't need the usual suspects for comedies to make a really, really funny movie; you just need the right people. This needed writers that A: knew how to make dirty jokes that were actually funny. Meaning poop jokes that worked, sex jokes that worked, gay sex jokes that work etc. B: could create a real sense that this was an action piece, but everything in it is just hilarious because of these crazy characters. And C: people that could tell some sort of a story. Even with the most basic genre example as Piere Morrel's over the tip top film "From Paris with Love", you always felt like you were in an action piece, but the antics worked so well. Even when Travolta would lay down some lame shit like 'wax on, wax off' (referring to his name and killing people), then Meyers' reaction would make it all worth while. Plus it pulled off some surprises with it's story and at the end you have had a good time filled with cursing, violence and low brow humor. That'll be on DVD soon by the way and if you're thinking of watching "MacGruber", save you cash and spend a buck to pick up "From Paris with Love" from Redbox instead.

Now with all this said, I do think there is something important to be learned from this film. This is yet another failed action/comedy genre piece and I think this puts a little extra pressure on Sony and Adam McKay's "The Other Guys". Sue me even when Will Ferrall's at his lowest he can make things at least fairly watchable and considering the extensive cast of with and against the grain performers this can work out... if it's done right. I think this and "Cop Out" are great examples of what NOT to do and should be considered as heavily for this genre as "The Heartbreak Kid" is considered what not to do when making a sex/rom-com.