Reviews

93% on Rotten Tomatoes? Seriously?

Look, I'm not a cynic. I love lame, weepy dramedies. Even those with little depth can be thoroughly touching and entertaining. But what I can't roll with is sh**ty writing and story- telling. Why do I say that, you ask? A few big reasons:

1) See, usually when a movie features a character story, that character must undergo some sort of fundamental change. He or she may learn something from a trial or a difficult experience and come out stronger on the other end. For example, the character might find out that he has cancer and appreciate life more because he's come to terms with his own mortality.

There is absolutely no character arc in this movie. Joseph Gordon Levitt's character Adam DOESN'T CHANGE AT ALL THROUGHOUT THE MOVIE. He starts off as a banal character who just kind of goes through life (who doesn't even have any notable character traits in the first place). He finds out he has cancer, and by the end of the movie...he is still a banal character who just kind of goes through life. Ask yourself this question; what exactly did Adam learn throughout the movie? What kind of wisdom did having cancer impart in him. How exactly was his life different from before his cancer to after? The answer is, NOTHING.

For one thing, I find this a little insulting to cancer victims because, in my opinion, it trivializes the trauma of having cancer. My grandpa has cancer right now. You think his life is different because of it? It sure as hell is. For another thing, this is just poor, crappy storytelling.

2) I have a friend, a PHILOSOPHY MAJOR IN COLLEGE who told me to pay attention to Seth Rogen's character Kyle, because he's "interesting". No he's not. He's not interesting. You know how he came across as a jerk the whole time who took advantage of his friend's horrible situation and didn't seem to care the whole time? And you know how at the end, they show the book on his table or whatever? This isn't depth. It's a CONTRADICTION. It's bad writing. It doesn't make Kyle a deep character at all. It makes Kyle a horribly conceived character who doesn't make any sense. I realize there's a forum thread about this movie on IMDb about whether or not Kyle is a good friend. The answer is: there is no answer. Why? Because the writer of the movie didn't care enough to write a good answer into the script.

Addendum to 2- the characterizations of every supporting character in this movie sucked. Bryce Dallas Howard's character of "the bad girlfriend" is just too simple. I don't like movies where the bad guy is just evil and nothing else. It's too easy that way. It's lazy. Everyone else just basically had one character gimmick. Anna Kendrick- naive. Oh, and messy, don't forget messy. Anjelica Houston- overbearing. Old dying people- cynical.

3) I just get this weird feeling that everybody loves that scene in the car where Joseph Gordon- Levitt cries. It's really emotional, I guess. And I understand that this was a moment of catharsis for the character and maybe the acting was pretty good here. But one single scene out of context doesn't make a movie good.

4) There are a lot of "Juno" moments in this movie. You know what I mean. The kind where they do some random shots of scenery, maybe play some indie music you've never heard of. This is usually done to create some air of deep contemplation. It's a f**king farce. It's a trick to make you think the movie's smarter than it is. Don't be fooled.

Now, I'll be fair. Here are things I liked:

1) Acting- not bad. I find JGL really overrated, and I feel like every single movie he's been in gets way too much credit. But he wasn't bad in this or anything. I happen to like Anna Kendrick. Seth Rogen is okay as well because his job was to be Seth Rogen.

2) Ummm actually that's it. Well, I like criticizing this movie. Maybe that counts.

No one wants to insult the cancer movie. I certainly don't. But just because I hate the movie doesn't mean I'm unsympathetic to cancer victims. A lot of filmmakers get away with creating pure crap just because of the subject matter. Don't let this sway your opinion. A crap movie is a crap movie.

There are a lot of movies like this that, in my opinion, are given way too much credit. By no means am I a film snob, but I think people need to check out more established directors. That way, they'll have higher standards than faux-intellectual, weepy bulls**t like this.

I like Family Guy. So much, that I've always said that if I were stuck on a desert island, Seth MacFarlane is one of the people I'd want to be stuck there with me. I found this movie horrible, loathsome, and lazy, so much so that it actually made me question Family Guy. That's how bad I thought it was. It made me rethink my entire conception of humor.

I did not find this movie funny at all. The style of comedy it uses is similar to that of Adam Sandler, whom I loathe. There's a lot of yelling, a lot of cursing, and overall, a lot stuff that's supposed to be funny. There are no clever jokes, no sense of set-up and reward. Instead, it's "oh look, the man is dancing, that's hilarious!". Not. Or "haha, that guy just said the f-word'". Isn't that funny? Kill me. I did find exactly one scene funny- the one in which Ted and Mark Whalberg have a fist fight in a hotel room. That reminded me of Family Guy and I found the idea so absurd that it made me chuckle. But this moment of hilarity is quickly diffused by a "getting hit in the groin" joke. Now, I realize that Family Guy uses exactly this type of humor, but somehow I always found it funnier. Maybe that's the problem here- live action is a different medium and the same things that work in the campy universe of cartoons don't work with real people.

I realize that this is a comedy, but I do believe that even low brow comedy movies should have a basic story or plot. This was supposed to be a character driven movie. The idea is simple- Mark Whalberg is a man-child who must learn to take responsibility and grow up. The script screws up this idea completely and instead, Mark Whalberg makes absolutely no change as a person. Neither does Ted. I realize it's supposed to be adorable that a teddy bear smokes weed, but the novelty wore off in 2 minutes. That, and I found the accent horribly annoying.

I was excited to see the supporting cast list on wikipedia. Whalberg is great, but like I said, his character was very poorly written. Mila Kunis does nothing in the whole movie but play a horribly clichéd romantic comedy girlfriend who also has no character arc in the movie. Joel McHale is another cliché in the movie and the fact that he's in the movie is a waste of a talented comedic actor. Laura Vandervoort literally does nothing. I mean, I at least expected her to be the seductress who tries to veer Mark Whalberg off the path of righteousness, but even that doesn't happen. So why even have this supporting cast in the movie if no one's going to do anything?

The plot of this movie was equally weak. MacFarlane uses all of these clichéd rom-com scenes and does nothing with them. Here's a small example. This movie has 2 or 3 restaurant scenes. Now ask yourself- why exactly were these scenes in the movie? Usually, restaurants are used in comedy movies to employ some kind of restaurant related humor. Maybe there's a maladjusted person in an uncomfortable environment, or maybe someone has an allergy and they cause a scene. At least someone falling or something. But the first restaurant scene of this movie simply has Mark Whalberg and Mila Kunis sitting and talking. That could have just as easily happened in a living room. So why was the restaurant scene necessary? Why even do that? It's completely pointless.

The ending to this movie accomplishes nothing. Mark Whalberg is supposed to change as a person. The death of Ted should have signified something, and having him come back to life s**ts on the character arc completely and nullifies it. We have no reason to believe that Mark Whalberg will grow up or make any kind of difference in life.

This movie had way too much product placement. Horribly obvious product placement.

Here's what I think. I think Seth MacFarlane is a perfectly competent individual who chose to be lazy. He wrote a horrible script, packed it with TV stars we might recognize, and collected the money. It's not just that this movie had no redeemable qualities. I actually feel like my intelligence was insulted and that I was fooled out of my money. Please don't let movies like this turn off your brain. Think about what you're watching and why you're laughing and don't settle for crap like this.

I liked this movie a lot when I was a kid. I think I even remember saying to myself that it was one of my favorite inspirational movies. Looking back, it was okay. I'll keep it as brief as I can:

1. The biggest problem with this movie (in my humble opinion) is the script. The writing of this movie was heavy-handed and extremely awkward.

-The dialogue was okay. It wasn't horrible, but there were moments that took me out of the movie and made me think about how strange the lines were. In particular, the beginning exposition with Jamal and friends sitting in school, talking about Forrester, was strange. I kept thinking, "wait, people don't say stuff like this." It felt like a weird old guy trying to write urban dialogue while simultaneously characterizing "the window". I guess ultimately, I'd just say that there was a strange disconnect.

-Many elements of the movie were hackneyed and sloppy. The love story element was extremely weird to me. I thought that entire relationship between Jamal and Anna Paquin was rushed and not believable. The racism elements/the "changing social circle" elements were strange as well. But I don't even think this movie was about race or class really. They just kind of threw in those elements sloppily, like afterthoughts. Basically, they have Jamal say "it's because I'm black, isn't it?". That's the extent of racism's role in this movie. To the film's credit, at least it didn't hit you over the head with these minor parts. It doesn't sink to the level of a Step Up movie, despite having a very similar idea to those pieces of crap.

-The character arcs were weird too. I can't really put into words how Forrester changed. I have a hard time pinning down exactly what Jamal did for William that cured his fear of the world. It almost feels like Forrester went to defend Jamal just on a whim. Similarly, I can't really pin down Jamal's arc. What happened to him? He got better at writing? And...? Then what? I suppose you could force out some idea about beating the system, but I don't think that was emphasized enough.

2. Look, no one wants to criticize Gus Van Sant. I get it. I didn't think the directing was that bad. He definitely gets points for squeezing out decent performances. This wasn't exactly a complex movie with complicated imagery or anything. One thing sticks out though. When Professor Crawford and co. confront Jamal about plagiarism, I couldn't even tell that there was more than one professor in the room. It was just a scene where I couldn't really tell what was going on. Just a note.

3. The acting was alright.

-Plenty of awkward lines. Plenty of awkward delivery. The head honcho professor was terrible. That scene where he talks to Jamal in Madison Square Garden was noticeably bad.

-Main actors were okay. I liked Jamal. And Sean Connery. They were fine.

-Why was Busta Rhymes in this movie? He wasn't bad or anything, but I found his part kind of negligible and his appearance distracting. Was it a strange attempt to lend this movie some kind of street cred or urban appeal? His character didn't even do much. The script could have found another way for Forrester to change his mind about helping Jamal. Or they could have had someone else let Jamal and Forrester into Yankee Stadium. I don't know. I'm just confused.

4. The jazz music was okay. It was quaint. At least they didn't blast some rap track in this movie to make it seem racial.

5. In conclusion

• Don't have a guy who writes sports movies write something that's purportedly deeper. The script was the biggest weak spot of this movie. I kind of think that the writer wanted to do another Radio, but failed because there was a little too much going on in this movie. Which was good because it wasn't a horrible, over-sentimentalized touchy feely turd, but it WAS a bit of a clusterfuck. Everything else was decent.