Delayed Reaction: Search Party

The Pitch: The Hangover meets We're the Millers

There's this type of low budget comedy movie that pulls from the same pool of actors. Movies like Get a Job, Joshy, and Someone Marry Barry. For all of them, I feel like some form of the phone call "Let's get the gang back together. See who's available" happens. Search Party is another of those movies. Luckily, I'm a fan of this group of actors. So, when I see a trailer with TJ Miller, Adam Pally, Thomas Middleditch, and Alison Brie all in a movie together, I'm looking for a release date*. Then I find out that Shannon Woodward, JB Smooth, Lance Reddick, Krysten Ritter, Rosa Salazar, Jason Mantzoukas, and John Glaser are in it too. Even the names that don't fit with the others sound like fun.

*I've also noticed these movies have trouble getting released. Search Party was filmed in 2013, almost a year before Miller and Middleditch teamed up for Silicon Valley. It wasn't released in the US until 2016.

I've said before that these Delayed Reactions aren't meant to be reviews. Sometimes, that's what they end up being. Normally, they are some thought I had about the movie. Without a doubt, the most remarkable thing about this movie is getting the full Middleditch. The man is naked a lot in this movie. Full frontal. I wasn't expecting that.

Now, I have a complicated opinion about male nudity. I have nothing against it in principal. There's a massive imbalance between male vs. female nudity in movies**. That's undeniable. As a matter of equity, there should be more male nudity (or less nudity overall, if you want to go in that direction). If you sat me down and said "there's going to be nudity in the movie you are about to see. What kind would you prefer?" My pick would be 'female' in most cases, just as it would be 'male' for other people. So, I can't sincerely say that I'm bothered to see more female nudity than male nudity in movies. Then again, I admit that there's entirely too much male gaze in nearly all visual media, and much of the nudity feels more than a little exploitative. And, there's also the fact on the other end of things, the only acceptable male nudity is when it's used for comedy, because the MPAA is dumb and  puritanical. I'm only touching the surface of this discussion, but what I'm trying to say in regards to Search Party, is "good on Thomas Middleditch for committing to the part". The role requires that he be naked in Mexico and he is naked in Mexico. No clever camera angles. Just a lack of clothing.

**Even then, there's debate. For women, it's boobs or vagina. For men, it's penis. That means there's a lot more that counts as female nudity. I still see more vagina in movies than penis, but the imbalance isn't as crazy in that - pardon the pun - tit for tat comparison. Is there a male equivalent for boobs, really?

The movie itself is decent. TJ Miller is toned down enough. Adam Pally plays the straight man well. Middleditch commits to whatever is asked of him. The rest of the cast is underutilized but not used poorly. I saw it alone and I get the feeling that the jokes land much better in a group setting***. I would love it if we could get to a point when a movie with a cast like this could get a major theatrical release that wouldn't bomb in theaters. Until that happens, I'm just happy they are all willing to work on these pet projects.

***Side thought: I see far too many comedies by myself. I need to remedy that.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: Baywatch

Formula: 21 Jump Street - the commitment to the jokes.

Before talking about the Baywatch movie, it's good to remind yourself of what this is based on. Baywatch was a 90s beach series that was cancelled by NBC after one season then went on to become a global phenomenon producing the next 10 seasons in syndication. It rejuvinated the career of David Hasselhoff and made Pamela Anderson the sex icon of the 90s. It was known for sexy lifeguards running in slow-motion and not much else. The number of cast members that also had Playboy pictorials is mind boggling. I don't think there's a person alive who watched the show for the writing or acting. In other words, the Baywatch movie haa very little to live up to.

That's why the 21 Jump Street comparison is so obvious. Both shows are from the same era and are remembered as punchlines. The 21 Jump Street movie came out of nowhere as one of the funniest movies of the last few years by casting some recognizable names and not taking itself at all seriously. Baywatch takes a different approach. It decides that it is a cool action movie first and a meta comedy second.

The plot is pretty simple. The veteran lifeguards, affable Lt. Mitch Buchannon (Dwayne Johnson), 2nd-in-command Stephanie Holden (Ilfenesh Hadera), and always-running-in-slow-motion CJ Parker (Kelly Rohrbach) welcome a new batch of recruits: defiant bad boy Matt Brody (Zac Effron), ideal pupil Summer Quinn (Alexandra Daddario), and perseverant goof Ronnie Greenbaum (Jon Bass). They get caught up trying to stop a drug operation run by one of the resort owners (Priyanka Chopra). Mitch and Matt butt heads. Ronnie has a crush on CJ. Matt and Summer are probably going to end up together. There's a captain telling them all to leave the case alone (because they are lifeguards, not cops). The movie is happy to constantly remind us of how absurd they are all being. The film repeatedly winks at the camera to tell us "We know this is ridiculous too". The problem is that it tries to have its cake and eat it too. Whenever the action starts, the comedy stops. In an instant, these lifeguards become the baddest mother-fuckers on the planet. I think the defense of doing that is that in those moments, the joke is that the movie is taking itself seriously, whereas the rest of the time it's being overly funny. In other words, half of this movie is 21 Jump Street and half of it is Airplane. Those two things don't jive. It's a brilliant built-in defense for the writing though: when a scene is funny, it's because it was meant to be funny. and when a scene isn't funny, it's because the joke is that it's not funny. 

There's a shocking number of punchlines that don't land. And, I don't mean that there's a lot of bad punchlines. I mean that there's a number of moments in which the line indicates that there's a joke, but the film doesn't leave a beat to punctuate the moment with laughter. Either it moves to a new scene before the joke can sink in or the scene continues like that wasn't a joke.  It's bizarre. I can't think of another movie with quite that problem.

I don't know how much of that to put on the cast either. It's no secret that this cast wasn't built for comedy. However, that doesn't mean they can't be funny. I go out of my way whenever I can to praise Johnson and Efron for giving it all they have in comedies like Pain & Gain and Central Intelligence or Neighbors and Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates. They aren't self-starters though. And, they play the same role in a comedy duo. They perform comedy like they are trying to be funny. There needs people to be someone who knows how to play-off that and there's no one like that in the cast. Bass isn't paired with anyone for laughs. He spends most of the film in his own world, delivering punchlines to thin air. That's fine, but it doesn't help the ensemble. I think Rohrbach, Hadera, and especially Daddario have chops, but they aren't asked to do much more than look good in bathing suits. I think all of them have the potential to be really good in a comedy movie (some already have been). In this case, they were failed by the writing and a questionable casting strategy. Perhaps the directing too. There just isn't a lot I found redeeming about this film. It's like the six credited writers (screenplay or story by) wrote jokes for completely different comedy movies, then director Seth Gordon was told to shoot a serious action movie, and the actors were told to split the difference.

I went into Baywatch prepared to give a contrarian Reaction for it, despite the poor RottenTomatoes numbers. I was going to find the silver lining and say things like "The Rock made his part work by force of will" or "Efron and Daddario have such an infectious chemistry that it didn't matter if the jokes didn't always land". I wanted to admit that if I stopped comparing it to 21 Jump Street, I'd see that there's a perfectly fine comedy there. All that is a little true. It's not unwatchable by any means. There's some dick humor that other people in the audience got a big kick out of. I just don't think the film was very interested in being a comedy, and it doesn't work well enough as anything else to forgive that.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend 

Movie Reaction: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales

Formula: Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl + a couple decades.

I'm not sure what I'm hoping to get out of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise at this point. The Curse of the Black Pearl is one of my favorite movies (Top 10 All-Time). It's one of those movies that I like so much that it feels like a magic trick. The action, the humor, and the characters are so well handled that I never get tired of watching it. I just saw it again last week and it holds up as well as I remembered. However, I don't think I've seen any of the sequels more than once.I just didn't care for them that much. I'm not one of those people who complain about sequels. I love a good sequel and the Pirates franchise is perfect for repeated adventures. I don't care for the direction the Pirates sequels have gone in so far. The humor is more silly and less clever. The action is bigger but not better staged. The great strength of The Curse of the Black Pearl is that Jack Sparrow forces himself into an otherwise traditional action movie. The version of that movie you'd expect is the young protagonist (Will Turner) fights the evil Pirate Captain (Hector Barbosa) to rescue the woman he loves (Elizabeth Swann). Jack Sparrow is essentially a supporting character (the comic relief) who forces his way into the center of everything. Instead, all the sequels have started with the idea that this is Jack Sparrow's movie and are written to fit that. As a result, the magic is lost.The series is still good popcorn entertainment though, and Dead Men Tell No Tales (DMTNT, for short) continues that.

Set a couple years after On Stranger Tides, DMTNT unites a trio that looks very similar to the one in Curse of the Black Pearl. There's Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp), down on his luck after years of failed pirating ventures. He is sought after by Henry Turner (Benton Thwaites) the now adult son of Will Turner, who is trying to free his father from the curse of the Queen Anne's Revenge. They pick up Carina Smyth (Kaya Scodelario), a young believer in science (who is repeatedly called a witch) motivated on a quest by the one souvenir she has from a father she never met. They seek to find Poseidon's Trident, which, legend says has the power to break any curse. Meanwhile, the cursed Captain Salazar (Javier Bardem) wants revenge on Sparrow and forces Capt. Barbosa (Geoffrey Rush) to help him. There are a lot of similarities to Curse of the Black Pearl which makes this feel like a soft reboot of the franchise. It's an engaging enough story. The Pirates cinematic universe isn't as coherent as some of the others out there, but it's functional. My casual memory of the last three installments was enough to follow what was going on.

The series has some character problems at this point. No one appears to have a clue whether Capt. Jack is a cunning and clever pirate of legend or Forrest Gump, lucking his was through every situation. I'm sorry, but we've established that Jack is the hero of the franchise by now. There's no tension in wondering if he's going to do the right thing anymore. It's a little insulting to the audience to think we'll fall for the "only looking out for #1" act again. I'm glad to see Brenton Thwaites getting another chance. After Oculus, Maleficent, and The Giver in 2014 didn't make him a star, I thought Hollywood was giving up on him (like Taylor Kitsch after 2012). This wasn't a great showcase for him though. He's essentially Will Turner without the blacksmith and swordsman skills. Kaya Scodelario (The Maze Runner) doesn't fare much better. She spends most of the movie like some sort of  Caribbean Agent Scully, telling anyone who will listen that she believes in science, not myth. The Pirates of the Caribbean world is not one in which you want anyone to be bringing up plausibility. That invites more questions than answers. Having a scientist in Pirates is like Star Wars explaining midichlorians. Will and Elizabeth were not the most dynamic characters in the first Pirates movie, but the movie does justify their romance. I cannot say the same about Henry and Carina. Their romance is forced into the story. Bardem provides a fine villain. The only problem with him is that I didn't believe for a second that he wouldn't be stopped by Jack Sparrow and company. That's forgivable.

Over the last year or so, I've picked up a new pet peeve. I don't like when I don't know what's going on in an action sequence or when it doesn't seem very well thought out. So, DMTNT perturbed me. The film begins with a massive set piece involving a failed bank heist. A lot of money and resources went into filming this. It's lively and a lot of fun. It also doesn't make any sense. From the perfectly wide streets to the Herculean power of the horses to Jack's ability to keep up with the moving target while also meeting major players in the film by complete coincidence, it's all too much. Later, there's some cartoonish business with a guillotine which I just plain don't understand at all. The climactic sequence is sufficiently big but it's also disorienting. I tracked the action only because I know the beats of a movie like this already (i.e. I knew who was and wasn't actually in peril and who's vendettas needed to be handled). However, the geography of where the characters are at any moment is hard to follow. Say what you will about Curse of the Black Pearl, but everything that happened felt possible.

This May has been overflowing with B-grade efforts: movies that are perfectly fine, but the execution isn't there to make them great. They relied too much on what previous installments did well before or what audiences already knew about the stars. BMTNT is another case of this. It's an animated two hours with a clear story arc. A few moments got an emotional response from me the same way that a dog dying in any movie, good or bad, will wreck my entire day. The scores for the Pirates movies are still among my all-time favorites. It's a collection of actors having a lot of fun with their roles. It's hard to be bored by that. This is no worse than any of the other Pirates sequels, so let that be your barometer going in. I liked this movie, but Curse of the Black Pearl remains the only film in the series I plan to revisit. One encouraging thing I can say for any future sequels - and there will at least be a sixth installment - is that all the problems are in execution. Unlike other franchises which salt the Earth for later installments, there's no reason why the next movie couldn't be exceptional.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend 

After the Credits:

(Some thoughts for if you've seen the movie)

I assume that this time they are killing off Barbosa for good. Regardless, the fact that they've brought him back from the dead once already sure does mute the impact in DMTNT. And I can't be the only one irritated by the long-lost daughter story, right? That's textbook "movie math" at work. They introduce a new female and she has to have a significant past. Jack and Barbosa are old enough. Jack needs to be able to hit on her, so that leaves Barbosa to be the father. It makes the whole universe feel very small.

Delayed Reaction: The Long Riders

The Pitch: Four sets of actual brothers play four sets of brothers for a James-Younger gang story.

The Jesse James story has been done to death. No one is going to argue with that. I've seen many of the more recent stories: the excellent The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and the entirely forgettable American Outlaws. Jesse James, the character has over a hundred credits on IMDB. In short, we know the story.

So, if I'm to be enticed by yet another Jesse James story, there needs to be a hook. The Long Riders has one of the most successful gimmicks I've ever come across: they cast brothers for all the roles: James and Stacy Keach, David and Keith (and Robert) Carradine, Dennis and Randy Quaid, Christopher and Nicholas Guest. And it does appear to part of a studio scheme. Basically, the brothers all wanted to work together, so they did. That alone makes this pretty interesting. Nearly 40 years later, what's impressive is that all those brothers are still pretty recognizable names (Stacy more than James, Christopher more than Nicholas, etc. but still).

The problem is that the gimmick also gets in the way. There's a few too many characters and stories to keep up with. At some point, I gave up really trying to track what's going on with each of the 8-9 brothers. (It probably doesn't help that the characters I knew the most about going in - Jesse James and Robert Ford - were played by the two actors I recognized the least - Stacy Keach and Nicholas Guest). Once it gets to the botched Northfield robbery and the falling apart of the James-Younger gang, I enjoyed it a lot.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The BFG

The Pitch: Roald Dahl doesn't have enough movie adaptations. There should be another one about that giant. Not the peach. The big friendly one.

I'm going to be that guy. I hate being the guy who says this, but it applies here...
That movie was pretty dull.

Look, I love Stephen Spielberg. I think he is one of a masters at what he does. His work on kids movies is so impressive. He captures the whimsy of imagination better than just about anyone, and a lot of that is present in The BFG. He nails the tone. Sophie in the orphanage early on feels exactly as mysterious and menacing as I remember when I was a kid, still awake at 3am, when everyone else was asleep. The land of the giants looks and feels right. At no point is the movie not completely charming.

It sure meandered though. I only somewhat remember the story of the book, so I'm not sure how much of the dullness of the film is a function of the source material. There was just an odd pace to it all. For example, I couldn't believe how long the castle breakfast scene went on and so close to the end. I kept seeing how little time was left in the film and that scene kept going. When they finally neutralize the threat of  the other giants, it's an afterthought.

I don't like to be complaining about the pacing. So many movies follow the exact same story arc, with the same beats, the same impulses. It is refreshing that Spielberg decided to do something different. Perhaps if the characters or the humor worked for me a little more, I would've been on board with hanging out with them in this manner for long swaths of time. That said, Mark Rylance is delightful as the BFG. It just seems like he's having a lot of fun with the role. With some actors, when they do motion-capture, it seems like a chore for them. It doesn't with him in this. The little girl is fine for a 10 year old too.

It's a shame that Spielberg magic wasn't enough to sell me on the film. Even when I think about it, something like Hugo isn't all that eventful either, but I really enjoyed that movie. So, I'm either being a hypocrite or I still haven't pinpointed what didn't work for me in The BFG. Oh well.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Frank

The Pitch: Michael Fassbender is the leader of an eccentric pop band who wears a full-head mask all the time.

I see a lot of movies, however I wouldn't say I see a diverse mix of them. I don't see many foreign movies or movies older than me. I'm pretty mainstream in my tastes. Even the indie movies I see are in that "indie in budget only" category that still get a lot of big names attached to them. That makes it hard to discover a movie that I can feel pretty confident that I'll like it that I haven't seen before. Normally, I store this movies like acorns in the winter and pull them out whenever I get particularly despondent about the choices I have. Frank is one of these movies. It checks a lot of boxes. It's directed by Lenny Abrahamson, right before he made a little movie I loved called Room. It's got Michael Fassbender, sandwiched between two Oscar nominated performances in 12 Years a Slave and Steve Jobs, wearing a papier-mache* head nearly the whole time. There's Domhnall Gleeson, fresh off About Time, and preparing for a huge 2015 (Ex Machina, Brooklyn, The Force Awakens, The Revenant). I can't forget Maggie Gyllenhaal, who has eternal Stranger Than Fiction goodwill from me. It's a Sundance movie, and anyone who tracks my December Reactions in particular will know that I love to binge through what that fest has to offer.

*This is the first time I ever realized that it is 'papier-mache', not 'paper-mache'. Am I the only one who didn't know that?

The movie was about what I expected it would be. Sundance movies almost always have a short story feel, like this isn't the full story they wanted to tell. Frank feels like it has a little more that it wanted to do. Fassenbender gives an impressively complex performance, given that he's in a head mask nearly the whole time. The rest of the band is gung-ho on playing up the weirdness. Special shout out to Maggie Gyllenhaal who has a lot of fun playing angry. Gleeson is mostly just responding to the world of Frank's band but he's also trying to understand it. He's used to being the oddball outsider in town, and suddenly he's the traditional, bland one in the group. It's great seeing how he tries to process that and how even the lightest of dabbling in Frank's affairs can throw off the entire balance of the group. It's a shame that the story didn't know what it was building toward and peters out in the third act. I do love Frank's song at the end though. It has been periodically stuck in my head over the last few days. The movie is definitely more clever than funny, but its charms and quirks are plentiful enough to sustain the weaker parts. I enjoyed this, even when I wasn't sure what I was watching.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: All the President's Men

The Pitch: You remember Watergate, right? It happened, like 2-3 years ago. It sounds like a good movie idea.

Did Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford really not get Oscar nominations for this? That doesn't seem possible. I decided to look into that and realized that this was the same year as Network which managed 2 nominations in the lead actor field, not to mention Stallone for Rocky, which won Best Picture, and Robert De Niro for Taxi Driver. In fact, the only nominee I didn't recognize was Giancarlo Giannini for Seven Beauties. Had the Hoffman and Redford roles been combined, a Lead Actor nomination would've been a lock. They must've split their odds, because other people were nominated from All the President's Men. In fact, Jason Robards was the only non-Network actor to win an award that night*.

*It's taking everything I've got to not go into a rant about how I don't get all the Network love.

It was impossible for me to separate this in my mind from Spotlight. It should be the other way around since this came first, but it happens. There's something romantic about the grizzled newspaper writer. Always on the beat, always chasing a new lead. Like police, without the resources. Find me a newspaper editor with rolled up sleeves, and I guarantee that's someone who is going to put in some work. I don't even care if that's the was newspaper people really are like. I've bought into the notion and, when done well, movies about them are pretty entertaining. Hell, even The Paper was engaging.

I do think the movie plays differently depending on your familiarity with the Watergate scandal. I know the basics, but not much. This film came out a couple years after it and throws a lot of names and facts at you. It was work keeping up with the names and details of the investigation. I like when a movie doesn't spoonfeed the information. I am curious if a lot of this was assumed knowledge at the time for anyone going into the movie or if people in 1976 were similarly being educated.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Modern Times

The Pitch: Charlie Chaplin isn't quite ready to make a full talkie yet.

There's not a comparison these days to the context in which Modern Times was released. By 1936, "talkies" had taken over pretty completely. Even as a hybrid film, Modern Times must've felt very dated in the Tramp's final act. Then again, it wasn't like The Artist coming out in 2011. It wasn't a novelty. It was a hold-out, like I imagine many black and white features were in the late 60s. People responded well enough though. Quality tends to find a way to stay relevant no matter what. There are some great physical gags like the assembly line and when the tramp gets stuck in the gears. That part looks both really fun and rife with ways to get injured. It's got the Tramp singing, which is unique. Paulette Goddard was a charming female lead. I look forward to seeing her in The Great Dictator as well.

I'll admit that I haven't developed the patience for silent films, or at least Chaplin's flavor of them. Despite not even being 90 minutes, like The Gold Rush, I got a little exhausted by the end. It felt more like a collection of physical gags than a story. That's on me though. I'll figure out how to watch these movies eventually. Perhaps I should move to Buster Keaton next, or finally get to Nosferatu.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Ice Age: Collision Course

The Pitch: How many times can we remake the same movie without anyone noticing?

I actually like these Ice Age reactions a lot. Not because the movies are anything special, but because the franchise is so curiously durable. In a lot of ways, it is the animated Fast and Furious series. Both started early in the 2000s. Nobody ever thought much about them. Then, a decade later, they're breaking box office records on the back of the foreign box office success. 2012's Continental Drift is the highest grossing movie ever to make >80% of it's money outside the United States. That's pretty crazy, given how seemingly anonymous these films are. The Fast and Furious movies make a lot of sense as mostly international hits. They are big, globe-trotting spectacles. Who doesn't like explosions, fast cars, and pretty people? I've been waiting for the bubble to finally burst for the Ice Age franchise and Collision Course is when it happened. Even before factoring in inflation, the domestic numbers plummeted (down 60% from the next lowest grossing movie in the franchise). Considering that the domestic to worldwide ratio remained about the same as the last movie, that means it took an equally large hit outside the US. While $408 million dollars is nothing to sneeze at, that barely beats how the first movie did 14 years earlier. If nothing else, it's a regression. I'm still betting on there being one more sequel.

Oh yeah, and the movie. It's OK. The cast is too big. Too many characters to service. I've never liked the Scrat stuff and the plot to too similar to what they've done before. I cared so little though, that it's hard for me to go after it too harshly.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: Alien: Covenant

Formula: Prometheus + 5 years

I'm going to be pretty short with this one. I don't have much to say about Covenant. I don't remember much about Prometheus. My assessment comes down to: great effects, impressive cast, generic story.

Covenant is an 80% sequel of Prometheus. Katherine Waterston, Danny McBride, Billy Crudup, and Demian Bichir are a slight step down from Charlize Theron, Idris Elba, and Noomi Rapace. Fassbender is about as good in both. The visual effects and production design are good. Not on a different level than Prometheus. The story is that of an Alien movie. I'm sure that die hards of the franchise will argue that it adds nuance to the larger mythology. As a casual viewer, I found that it was a slightly different delivery system for a lot of iconic Alien deaths. I did thoroughly enjoy how often they called the aliens "those fuckers".

I'll admit, this suffers from the fact that I've seen two movies pretty recently - Passengers and Life - that use a lot of the same story beats. So, a lot of Covenant came off as stale or generic to me. Had I not seen a story like this since Prometheus or if alien/space horror was one of those genres I had a more insatiable appetite for, I'd be much more excited by this.

Covenant is a good Alien movie. That's what it wants to be. I wasn't blown away by it, but I don't believe that was the aim. It's not as good as the classic installments in the franchise or as bad as the maligned sequels in the 90s or Predator crossovers. I liked it in the sense that I was perfectly entertained for two hours that felt like two hours and wasn't distracted by anything that bothered me, however I don't imagine I'll recall much about it a few months from now.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend 

Delayed Reaction: The Late Shift

The Pitch: Who has a Leno, Letterman, or Carson impression ready?

Sometimes, the decision to see a movie is as simple as thinking it was another movie, then being too lazy to turn it off when you realize your mistake. You see, I meant to watch the Ron Howard movie, Night Shift, and got confused. So, instead, I got this mostly forgettable TV-movie about the Jay Leno/David Letterman debacle after Johnny Carson retired from The Tonight Show.

At this point, the movie is almost completely unneeded for me. I'm a nerd about this stuff. I haven't read the book that shares the name with this movie, but I have read Warren Littlefield's book about NBC in the 90's and Bill Carter's follow-up, The War For Late Night, about the Jay Leno/Conan O'Brien debacle. I knew most of the major players in this movie already and the beats of the story. The fun for me was in how well it was cast. John Michael Higgins and Daniel Roubuck do what they can to mimic Letterman and Leno respectably. It's a tall order though. Those two men have singular presences. I love seeing how, between Seinfeld and this, Bob Balaban cornered the market on playing Warren Littlefield-types. Only Kathy Bates' work as Leno's cutthroat agent was all that remarkable.

Overall, the movie tried to play nice and suffered for it. No one really comes away looking bad or even multi-dimensional. It's shot in an anonymous manner, with the TV-movie "house style" that could've been made by any TV director in the mid-90s. It's not even 90 minutes though, so it's hard to get all that up in
arms about wasted time though. For such a minimal investment, it's fine.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Which Friend is "Winning"?

There is no reason for this. It's not the anniversary of when the show began or ended. No one in the cast has done something notable recently. I didn't even start watching the show on Netflix. I don't know why. I just asked myself "Which Friend has been winning since the show ended?".

There is no objective answer, obviously. The best I can do is break things down into a few categories and see where it takes me.

Box Office

Jennifer Aniston
There's no denying that Jennifer is the box office champ among the Friends. She's been in over 20 films since the show ended, including hits like We're the Millers, Marley & Me, and The Break-Up. Her films have grossed $1.17 billion and she's been the lead in many of them.

Courteney Cox
Of the Friends who have tried, Courteney has had the least success. She's been in 6 movies that have made a combined $391 million. $268 million of that comes from two films, Bedtime Stories and The Longest Yard, which she was barely in.

Lisa Kudrow
Lisa has been busy, appearing in 13 movies that have made a combined $633 million. These have mostly been mom roles in films like Bandslam and Easy A, or tiny roles in films like Neighbors and The Girl on the Train.

Matt LeBlanc
No films released in theaters since the end of Friends. At best, he gets an incomplete.

Matthew Perry
He's made exactly one movie with a theatrical release, 17 Again, which made $64 million. He's been much more focused on his TV work.

David Schwimmer
Shockingly, David is behind only Jennifer Aniston in the box office, with films grossing $671 million. Almost $600 million of that comes from three Madagascar films.

Winner: Jennifer Aniston. Whether you look at number of films, prominence in those films, or success of those films, Aniston has the undeniable lead.

Film Quality

Jennifer Aniston
22 films on Rotten Tomatoes. Average rating of 40%. There's not a lot of high-low in there either. Only one film rated about 70%, the little-seen Friends with Money. Only three movies under 20%. In other words, she just takes whatever offers are giving her lead roles. She does have that Golden Globe nominated performance in Cake though.

Courteney Cox
7 films on Rotten Tomatoes. Average rating of 28%. The best movie she was in was Scream 4 at an uninspiring 59%. Look, you'll see that none of the Friends have consistently made great movies in this time, but 28% is especially underwhelming.

Lisa Kudrow
14 films on Rotten Tomatoes. Average rating of 52%. This is propped up by films like Bandslam (81%, really?) and Kabluey (84%). There's Easy A too (85%). She is prominent in very few of these movies though.

Matt LeBlanc
1 film on Rotten Tomatoes. Rating 36%. Lovesick came out right after Friends ended, didn't earn a theatrical release that I'm aware of, and scored poorly with critics.

Matthew Perry
1 film on Rotten Tomatoes. Rating 55%. 17 Again was OK. The critics have spoken.

David Schwimmer
8 films on Rotten Tomatoes. Average Rating of 62%. David has avoided any real stinkers. The worst film he appeared in was Run Fatboy Run (48%) and that was only a tiny cameo. I'm including it though since he was also the director. His next worst film? John Carter (51%), which has the hilarious credit "Young Thark Warrior". Don't you remember that? While he normally accepts supporting roles, they tend to be in decent movies.

Winner: David Schwimmer. It's not competitive, but Schwimmer edges the others out. One great movie from anyone could swing the results entirely.

TV Shows

Jennifer Aniston
She's been too busy with her film career work regularly on any TV shows.

Courteney Cox
She's had two TV shows post-Friends. Dirt lasted two seasons and was quickly forgotten. Cougar Town had 6 seasons with a devoted, albeit small, following. She also got a Golden Globe nomination for her work on the latter show.

Lisa Kudrow
Her last decade and change has been spent on two projects with two stints each. There's the long running Web Therapy, which started on the web and moved to Showtime. More importantly, there's her two seasons on The Comeback, which earned her an Emmy nomination each time.

Matt LeBlanc
Everyone remembers Joey. While that's best to be forgotten, he did get a Golden Globe nomination for his work. While Episodes wasn't my taste, he did earn 4 Emmy nominations over 5 seasons for that too. Now he's on Man With a Plan, which only proves that he's still employable.

Matthew Perry
I'll say this much. He doesn't give up. He's been a lead in 4 different series since Friends ended and one mini-series. Studio 60, Mr. Sunshine, and Go On were all fairly high profile flops. The Odd-Couple barely lasted 3 seasons. His Mini-Series, The Kennedys After Camelot probably won't make an impact on this years' awards circuit.

David Schwimmer
He only recently moved back to TV with American Crime Story and Feed the Beast in 2016. ACS earned him an Emmy nomination. Feed the Beast got cancelled. We'll call that a split-result.

Winner: Matt LeBlanc. I was tempted to go with Kudrow for the Comeback success or Cox for how much I personally enjoyed Cougar Town. I have to go with LeBlanc though. Three shows. Globe or Emmy nominations for two of them. All three lasted at least 2 seasons. He's like Ringo being the Beatle with the most solo #1 hits.

Guest/Temp Work

Jennifer Aniston
This is going to be an even more subjective category than the others. Aniston has a great guest spot on 30 Rock (Emmy nominated). She did two episodes of something called Burning Love. Cox called in a Friends favor and got her to do episodes of Dirt and Cougar Town. Recently, she had a meta-appearance on SNL that was very entertaining.

Courteney Cox
Most of her guest work has been Friends favors, showing up in Go On and both versions of Web Therapy. I'm sure she was fun on Dunk History, Private Practice, and whatever Barely Famous is. I haven't heard anything about her TV movies Charity Case and TalhotBlond. It's her 3 episodes on Scrubs that earns her the most points.

Lisa Kudrow
For a while, she wasn't doing much with Guest spots. Mostly a bit of voice work or Friends favors like her episode of Cougar Town. Since 2013 though, she's been on a great run: 4 episodes of Scandal, 7 episodes of BoJack Horseman, 1 episode of Angie Tribeca, and 2 episodes of Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt.

Matt LeBlanc
Lisa Kudrow called in a favor for Web Therapy a few times. That's it.

Matthew Perry
Of course, he appeared in Web Therapy and Cougar Town as Friends favors. He did a pair of hospital comedies (Scrubs and Children's Hospital) for an episode each. His biggest claims though, are 7 episodes combined between The Good Wife and The Good Fight and an Emmy and Golden Globe nominated performance in the TV Movie The Ron Clark Story.

David Schwimmer
His Friends favors were episodes of Web Therapy and Episodes. Apparently, he was in an episode of Entourage. The only thing that matters to me is his episode of 30 Rock.

Winner: Lisa Kudrow. Perry put up a good fight, but Kudrow has been on fire lately.

Extracurriculars

Jennifer Aniston
She has produced a few things. The only projects I've heard of were for movies she starred in as well. I'm not sure how much credit I can give her for those.

Courteney Cox
She was an Executive Producer for her shows, Dirt and Cougar Town. She's also an EP for the 245 episodes of the Celebrity Name Game and directed 12 episodes of Cougar Town.

Lisa Kudrow
She has "written by", "creator", and "producer" credits for the two shows she's worked on (Web Therapy and The Comeback). More than the other extra credits the Friends have for starring roles, I fully believe that Kudrow's shows are her "babies". She appears to be very hands-on.

Matt LeBlanc
He took several years off after Joey. Not a lot of actors do that. I kind of respect that he's willing to just take a break. He has what I assume is a nominal EP credit for Man with a Plan. He was an EP for the box office bomb Jonah Hex. That's not great. Oh, and he was a host for Top Gear long enough to essentially destroy the international hit.

Matthew Perry
He's an EP for any show he's on these days. He was a co-creator on The Odd Couple and Mr. Sunshine too, so maybe those EP credits aren't only nominal. Oh, and he directed an episode of Scrubs.

David Schwimmer
He did a little stage work. He's produced a couple theatrical and TV movies. Most of his extracurricular work has been as a director. He's dabbled in TV shows (Joey - 2 episodes, The Tracy Mogan Show - 1 ep., Little Britain USA - 6 eps.), TV-Movies (Nevermind Nirvana, New Car Smell), and feature films (Run Fatboy Run, Trust).

Winner: David Schwimmer. Kudrow really sinks her teeth into her projects. so I considered her here. However, I'm going with Schwimmer because his extracurriculars were for project that he didn't star in. In other words, they are true extracurriculars.

So, I've crunched some numbers after my arbitrary assessments of these different categories, and I've determined that, by a healthy margin, Lisa Kudrow is who I believe is "winning" post-Friends. In fact, this is the order I came up with:

1. Lisa Kudrow
2. David Schwimmer
3. Jennifer Aniston
4. Courteney Cox (tie)
4. Matthew Perry (tie)
6. Matt LeBlanc

Kudrow has picked her film roles somewhat judiciously and kept very busy with her TV work. Schwimmer benefited greatly from the low film bar set by the other Friends. Aniston could've run away with this if she picked her movies a little better. Perry and Cox have relied a bit too much on their Friends name recognition. And, LeBlanc just hasn't kept very busy. I expected this to be between Aniston and Kudrow. Schwimmer faring so well was quite a surprise.

Thank you for humoring me as I had a little fun. If you disagree with where I ended up, by all means, call me a fool. This is not a definitive assessment.

Delayed Reaction: One Day

The Pitch: The relationship between a woman (Anne Hathaway) and a man (Jim Sturgess) told by checking in on them on July 15th from 1988 to 2006.

There's an idea I've mused about in the past about how there are certain movies that pair with other movies specifically because one makes you appreciate the other even more. I believe I first discussed this after seeing Lock Up. That movie made me appreciate The Shawshank Redemption even more by reminding me of everything that could've gone wrong in the film. While not as perfect a match as those two movies, I feel that way about One Day and About Time. Both tell the story of a relationship over a long period of time. They have a charming British man and a likable American actress (who is the real reason I was attracted to each movie). The men deal with the death of a parent. The women work in publishing in different capacities. Basically, both films are about time travel and the mistakes you need to make to appreciate what you have.

Only, One Day doesn't pull it off. All the years of check-ins are supposed to have a cumulative effect at the end, but it never gains enough momentum to do achieve that. I spent my One Big Leap accepting that so many important things would happen on July 15th each year and even then, it really overtaxed the rule. The arc of each character's success and failure was way too familiar as a structure and didn't go anywhere unexpected. The only place the movie zigged when I expected it to zag was when it killed off Anne Hathaway. Much of that surprise was due to the brutal method (major Meet Joe Black flashbacks). Thematically, it was a textbook tragedy to have in a romantic movie. All this troublesome plotting could be forgiven though. As much as I like to credit About Time for finding a lot of ways to surprise me, it is actually quite traditionally structured. What held One Day back was that I didn't like the two lead characters together. For Jim Sturgess to get away with being such a dick for so much of the movie, his chemistry with Anne Hathawaty needed to be off the charts and it wasn't. Perhaps if Hathaway wasn't so concerned with reeling in her wandering accent* they could've been a bit more natural together.

*Look, I'm not one to be the "accent police" very often. Most of the time, I don't even notice a bad accent. That said, I don't think it's crazy to suggest that an actor not having to worry about an accent can free up his/her performance some.

For nearly everything I can say about One Day, I end up thinking of a direct About Time comparison that is better. In almost every way, what About Time opted to do was better. I'm not saying One Day was horrible. It's clever enough and has some really charming moments. Hathaway and Sturgess aren't bad. They just have characters who are duds and don't work together as the movie requires.

Going back to my original point, now that I've seen One Day, I can see all the pitfalls that About Time narrowly avoided. It's similar to how people say that it's better to remake a bad movie with good ideas than to remake a movie that's already great. I can see the pieces of the same movie in both One Day and About Time. Because of that, One Day makes it easier to appreciate the smaller things that About Time so well.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Witness

The Pitch: Kitty Genovese's brother investigates the truth of what happened on the night of her murder.

I was in a Kitty Genovese mood one night. After 37 left me cold and without insight, I found this gem on Netflix to pair with it. Bill Genovese is Kitty's younger brother. He's been obsessed with his sister's famous murder for most of his life and is seeking closure. There isn't a "truth" to find though. No smoking gun recording or account that will set the record straight and make everything better for him. So, the documentary becomes about Bill searching for a way to get past this obsession.
Naturally, he begins with verifying the story. His sister has become the symbol of public apathy, but should she be? Was she really ignored by 37 people who saw her getting killed? Between his difficulty tracking any of these people down and the accounts of that night they provided*, it's clear that the investigative reporting at the time for the story wasn't great. But it made for a great headline. How does the saying go: When legend become fact, print the legend.

*Obviously, the witnesses had 50 years to forget details, convince themselves of another truth, or lie about what they saw. Regardless, there is a big difference between hearing something and actually seeing something.

A movie just about tracking down the accuracy of the 37 accounts would be fine. However, this doesn't stop there. Bill realizes that path is a dead end for closure so he looks elsewhere. There's the deeply awkward meeting with Kitty's murderer's reverend son or the chilling recreation of that night Kitty was killed, complete with an actress playing Kitty, screaming for help. I loved that the conclusion is that he needs to take Kitty's life back: make her into a person again, not a symbol. That was more satisfying than if it would've been about getting a retraction in the newspaper or something.
I have no problems with the content of the documentary. Some of the other elements weren't as great. This is a vanity project. There's no confusion about that. It's as much about Bill as it is about Kitty, but it doesn't put him under a thorough microscope. He's given the hero treatment. His only flaw is that he cares too much. He didn't really need to be front and center of the documentary if that's all the film has to say about him. And, this could've been edited together a bit more coherently. There's a lot of good parts but they don't always flow together. Overall, this was quite enjoyable and informative though.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

My Favorite Movies: Stranger Than Fiction

One of my problems with this blog is that it started too late. The idea behind the Reactions is to get my thoughts of a movie after the first time I see it. I didn't start the Movie Reactions in earnest until 2012 and the Delayed Reactions, fittingly, were a little behind, starting in 2013. That's over 20 years of viewing movies for the first time that I haven't covered. Frankly, it seems wrong that Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot! gets a post but Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind doesn't, all because of when I happened to them.  In order to rectify this some, I'm introducing a new on-going series tentatively called "My Favorite Movies". The idea is simple enough. At any given time, I have an all-time top 100 movie list. Sporadically, whenever I have the time, I 'll post a piece about one of these favorite movies. There is no order, rhyme, or reason to which movie I'll choose at a given time. The aim here is to examine why I regard the movie so highly, looking at everything from quality to personal context to sheer entertainment value. I hope you enjoy.

While most movies will be arbitrarily selected, this debut piece is not. Today, on my 30th birthday, I'm going to begin with the movie at the very top of my list - my all-time favorite movie - Stranger Than Fiction. I haven't had a lot of shifts in my favorite movie over the years. I probably called The Phantom Menace or The Two Towers my favorite at some point. I stayed agnostic on the idea for a while, realizing that I hadn't seen enough films to make an informed decision. Some time around 2008-09, Stranger Than Fiction cemented itself at the top and nothing has come close since. If I could only see one movie ever again, this would happily be my pick. That gut level feeling is what does most of the work. Then again, the whole point of this blog is that I'm not satisfied with my gut. I like to understand my gut, figure out what causes my gut. So, here is my attempt to explain why Stranger Than Fiction is my favorite movie of all time.

For me, it all begins with Harold Crick (but not his wristwatch). I won't say I am Harold Crick, but I certainly recognize a lot of things about him in myself. I'm neurotic and fairly obsessed with organizing and establishing rituals. In the movie, most of this is expressed by Harold’s constant measuring and enumerating. I notice the smaller things though, like how he only walks on the white lines on the crosswalk. He's aware of how awkward he can be around people. That’s why he gets off the bus a good 27 blocks too early when he first hits it off with Ana. Most people who know me have had an awkward experience talking to me on the street when I wasn't expecting to see you. Harold is happy to blend in rather than stick out, as am I. I've literally stopped going to food places when the people working there start to recognize me or crossed the street to avoid running into friends who haven’t noticed me yet just because I don’t think I have anything to say. I love the moment when Prof. Hibert tells Harold that he looks tired when, in fact, Harold is just calm. My face is misread often. I have a resting pissed face, when most of the time, I'm just thinking about something or calm. Harold is certainly an extreme case. He appears to have only one friend and no family. He is almost completely introverted and alone. I'm better than that, although, if you put me in a new city and give me a couple years, I may start sporting that half-Windsor knot as well. I cannot stress one key difference enough: I hate watches. Even before phones spared me of that insufferable accessory, I would put my watch in my pocket when my mother tried to make me wear one. The focus on Harold's watch nearly derails the movie for me. Otherwise, I'm totally a Harold Crick.

That's what makes the core story so great. Beneath all the literary, high-concept stuff (which I also love and will get to shortly), Stranger Than Fiction is a story about a man taking the lead in his life. I have a soft spot for a lot of story types, but a carpe diem story is chief among them. I am an absolute coward in my life. I don't take chances. I tell myself all the time how I'm going to break out of my ruts. I decide that I'm going to date more or figure out what I'm actually doing with my life. I will outline things months in advance to show that there’s promise for a better future in which I’m all the things I want to be. Then, I come up with an excuse not to do these things. It’s fear and it wins damn near every time. I like the idea of fate – that someone could be destined to do something great or significant. I don’t believe in it, but I find it comforting. A lot of people are driven by a belief in something even though nothing is actually guaranteed. Well, Harold Crick is a man who believes that his story has already been written and has more reason than most to believe that’s true. I look up to Harold because he doesn’t accept that he can’t make things better. I adore the conversation he has with Prof. Hibert that I affectionately call “the pancake discussion”. It gets me every time, especially the following exchange:

"This isn't...a story to me. It's my life."

"Absolutely. So just go make it the one you've always wanted."

Up to that point, Stranger Than Fiction is a clever little movie. How Harold responds to this is when the film becomes great. Still not sure what it means to "make the life you’ve always wanted", he asks Dave what he would do if he knew he was going to die. I love that conversation too. Dave doesn’t appear to take the question seriously at first. He asks if he’s the richest man in the world and ends up getting superpowers for the hypothetical. His answer though isn’t ridiculous. It’s serious. He’d go to Space Camp. “You’re never too old for Space Camp, dude.” Yeah, that’s on the nose, but I don’t care. It’s makes a profound point. The life you want doesn’t have to be something special. Sometimes it’s as simple as getting out of your own head, no longer counting brush strokes, buying a “terribly mistreated, Seafoam Green Fender Stratocaster”, seeing The Meaning of Life in the middle of the day*, and buying flours for the girl you like. Harold Crick doesn’t stop being himself after that. He just stops being afraid to be himself, and that’s what I respond to. I don’t care if the romance between Harold and Ana is simplistic either. By the time he brings her flours, I’ve already fully identified with the idea that “Harold is me”. Only thinking as far as “I want you”: I’ve definitely had moments like that. Singing “Whole Wide World”: I’ve never done that. I can’t imagine doing that. For someone like Harold or like me, that’s First Responder at the World Trade Center-level bravery. For my money, there’s not a more perfect collection of scenes in any movie than that middle act of this one. The cut to Wreckless Eric taking over singing his song (“Whole Wide World”) is the climax of the film when I watch it. The movie isn’t even close to being done though. There’s great things ahead.

*Side Note: The scene of Harold seeing The Meaning of Life by himself is what convinced me that there’s nothing wrong with seeing a movie by yourself, which has had a profound effect on my life, as silly as that seems.

This would be a good time to talk about Will Ferrell. I’m a big fan of comedians taking on dramatic roles. Robin Williams was exceptional when he wanted to be doing it. Adam Sandler is tremendous in Punch Drunk Love and, despite its many flaws, Funny People. On TV, Vince Gilligan has changed the career paths for Bryan Cranston and Bob Odenkirk by putting them in dramatic roles. Ferrell is my gold standard though. The character Harold Crick is all about restraint, which is the last thing anyone would’ve associated with Will Ferrell in 2006, fresh off Anchorman and Talladega Nights. That gives his performance a great tension. He nearly becomes the Will Ferrell we know a few times in the movie, and those scenes are all warning signs for Harold. When he yells to the sky at the bus stop after first finding out he’s going to die, that’s funny. But, it’s also followed by the eruption in his apartment that leads him to get help from professionals (first a psychiatrist, then a professor of Literature). Later, there’s the construction crew wrecking his apartment. Farrell rightfully plays that big. That moment directly leads to Hibert advising Harold to take control of his life because the narrative is happening regardless. Ferrell is great at bringing a childlike innocence to his characters. I guess you could call it being a “man-child”. Buddy the Elf, Ron Burgundy, and Ricky Bobby are all characters who, for one reason or another, have never had to grow up. Harold is like that too. He has retreated from life. He’s not worn down by disappointment. It’s more like he’s a toy that’s never been taken out of the box. That’s perfect for Ferrell. He just has to play everything smaller than he normally would. I can’t imagine a better actor for the role. He’s funny without being cynical. Weary but not spent.

This has a great cast all-around. That’s a statement, not an opinion. Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson have two Oscars each. Maggie Gyllenhaal and Queen Latifa have Oscar nominations too. Tony Hale is building an Emmy collection. Will Ferrell is one of the weaker actors in the film by the numbers. I wouldn’t say any of the supporting characters in the film are complex. They aren’t supposed to be. Most of them are too obsessed to be complex. Karen Eiffel is fixated on death. Jules Hibert is obsessed with literature. Ana Pascal has to be a revolutionary. Penny Escher is efficient. Only Dave isn’t preoccupied with something else (although he sure does like outer space). And, all of them are willing to break from their preoccupations for Harold’s sake. Karen’s entire life is tied to death. Oddly, it’s what she lives for. Does she ever seem happier than when she’s at the ICU looking for the “dead for-sure ones”? However, she sacrifices the perfect death in order to keep Harold alive. Ana is a woman crusading for responsible government spending who falls for an IRS agent. No need to explain the conflict there. Penny has a reputation for always meeting a deadline, yet she has sympathy for Harold’s situation and gets Karen an extension. Prof. Hibert is the most interesting to me, because it took me the longest time to figure him out. Initially, he isn’t helping Harold because he cares about him. He doesn’t even care enough to remember Harold's name at first (Howard is close though). He immediately reacts to Harold like a character in a book. In their first meeting, Hibert is more interested in guessing Harold’s quirks than listening to his situation. The quiz he gives Harold is a test of his own ability to recognize story types. He literally shuts the door on Harold until Harold becomes literary (“Little did he know”). When Harold identifies Karen as the author he’s hearing, the fact that she kills her characters is only Hibert’s second concern. His first is disappointment that he didn’t guess the right narrator. Hell, he tries to convince Harold that he should die for the sake of it making a good story. He makes it abundantly clear that he is too busy to be helping Harold when they first meet, but he’s too obsessed with literary examination to pass this opportunity up. Even he is swayed by Harold though. At the pool, he lets Harold think he’s not interested enough to read Karen’s manuscript right away, then he starts reading as soon as Harold leaves. In his meeting with Karen*, as hard as he tries, he can’t hide the fact that he’s pleased she didn’t kill him off.

*Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson only have one scene together and they are great in it. A year later, they are the co-leads in Last Chance Harvey, a movie that has them together almost the entire time. Coincidence? I think not.

OK. It’s finally time for the easy target. Stranger Than Fiction is a high concept movie. It’s what the movie was sold on. It’s why I saw it in theaters opening weekend*. That high concept is the idea that this is the story of a man trapped in a story about his life. I gave up writing original stories many years ago, but I’ve always been obsessed with storytelling. I love the structure of stories and how to break them. My favorite episodes of shows growing up would almost always be the ones like the Rashomon-style episode of Alvin and the Chipmunks that played with the narration. The reason I stopped attempting to write my own fiction (other than not being that great at it) is because I was always more interested in the construction than the final product (the logistics of character locations, the consequence of actions way down the line, how different perspectives can change the meaning of events). I'd be spo busy planning that I would never get around to writing. So, I’m a sucker for a movie that plays with the writing process. Something like Adaptation is an obvious one, but I even adore Alex & Emma. Stranger Than Fiction was certain to be something I would eat up. I did a lot more research for this post than I have for anything I’ve written on this blog. Something I saw repeatedly written about Stranger Than Fiction is that it people called it “imitation Charlie Kaufman”. I understand where that’s coming from. With films like Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Kaufman cornered the market on screenplays that break narrative structure. I don’t think that’s what Stranger Than Fiction does though. It’s doesn’t break the narrative. It’s a slave to the narrative. The central question of the movie is who is writing the story. I still don’t know the answer. Karen Eiffel and Harold Crick never lose their agency in the film. Even once Harold “knows” how his story will end, he chooses to follow its lead. He could choose not to go to work that day, but then that boy would be hit by that bus. Like many things in the movie, the boy and the bus driver are plot devices. We don’t really know about them. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a story, nor does it mean that what happens to them doesn’t matter. Harold understands that and decides to do what Karen’s outline says. He chooses to save that nameless boy. Who really has more power in the story: Harold or Karen? Again, I don’t know. Another common criticism I read is that the last act of the movie falls apart: that is squanders everything it’s building toward. But...isn’t that the point? Perhaps I’m “drinking the kool-aid”, but Stranger Than Fiction is the story of Karen Eiffel writing Death & Texas Taxes. Karen and Prof. Hibert have a discussion at the end of the movie about how the ending of the book is a disappointment. By definition then, the end of the movie should be disappointing/contrived. Just listen to the doctor at the end explaining to Harold how he survived. That’s a plot device too. There are so many plot devices in the movie: Harold’s watch dying, the woman handing two audits to Harold and Dave, Harold’s apartment being destroyed. This is a movie about plot-driven vs. character-driven story-telling. Prof. Hibert’s speech to Harold about what happens if he "walks through that door" has been the basis of nearly all story criticism I’ve had for the last decade. Is it a coincidence that the best parts of the movie happen when Harold is consciously driving his story? I don’t think so.

*I’ve saved over 500 ticket stubs for nearly every movie I’ve seen since 2004. I cannot express how sad I am that my stub for Stranger Than Fiction is one of the few that I cannot find.

Not everything that I love about Stranger Than Fiction is the big stuff. For instance, I adore this sound track. It introduced me to Spoon. Thank you for that. “The Way We Get By” and “My Mathematical Mind” are great songs that fit the film perfectly. I dig the style of the film. The visualization of all the calculations in Harold’s mind are a bit much at first. I appreciate them more every time, even when they are just there as a joke. After Harold is in the bathroom with Prof. Hibert, Hibert asks Harold if he was able to count the number of tiles on the floor. Incredulously, Harold tells him he wasn’t counting the tiles. Only, thanks to the graphics, we, the audience, know that Harold wasn’t counting the tiles because he was too busy measuring the soap dispensers. I even love that his two coworkers at the IRS are the guys from the Sonic commercials. 
One odd thing that plays in its favor is that I didn’t like Stranger Than Fiction much when I first saw it. The friends I saw it with all loved it. I didn’t. Thanks to the advertising, I was expecting something much different. I’m not ashamed to say that I’m slow to pick up on some movies. I miss a lot the first time. I can accidentally focus on the wrong thing when I first see something*. If your thoughts of a movie a decade later are still exactly the same as when you first saw it, I’m not sure that I can trust your opinion. I bought Stranger Than Fiction on DVD to figure it out. While I didn’t love it at first, I also didn’t stop thinking about it. I had to figure it out. I watched it many times. Before long, I realized that I was watching it for enjoyment, not as a puzzle. I wish I had an “a-ha” moment when I knew I loved it. There isn’t one. Curiosity just turned into appreciation.

*Lord knows I harped on all the reflection imagery in Carol initially. I’m slowly appreciating the rest of that film more.

When it’s all said and done, I shouldn’t overthink it. I love this movie because it makes me feel good. That’s allowed. I’m not saying this is the best made movie of all time. It’s just my favorite, and I only have to answer to myself. Some of this is due to context or opportunity. Certain periods in my life have a disproportionate number of my favorite films. 2001, when I was 14 and finally starting to look at movies as more than just entertainment, has the first Lord of the Rings, Ocean’s Eleven, and A Knight’s Tale, which are among my top 15 favorites ever. 2011, when I started seeing movies by myself, thus not seeing them as only a social activity, is very prevalent in my top 100 movie list with films like Warrior, Bridesmaids, and Tucker and Dale vs. Evil all rating highly. It’s probably no coincidence that my two favorite movies of all time, Stranger Than Fiction and Superbad, came out less than a year apart (in 2006 and 2007) when I was 19-20 years old. We’re all more impressionable at certain times in our life and this film certainly benefited from that.

Regardless of the reason, when I watch this movie, I just feel great. While I don’t consider this film a true comedy, it has some lines that tickle the hell out of me. It uses the one “fuck” a PG-13 movie is allowed, when Hibert responds to Harold’s narrator not telling him when he’s going to die by saying, "Dramatic irony. It'll fuck you every time". Have you ever paused to see what Hibert doesn’t want erased on the chalkboard? You should. When Harold tells Hibert, "I can't die right now. It's just really bad timing", I know it’s supposed to be funny, but it breaks my heart every time. When Ana tells Harold “I know…I want you too” I want to jump up and cheer. I don’t care how hokey Karen’s narration at the end of the movie is. I get teary-eyed every time I hear it. If you ask me, it doesn’t get any better than Stranger Than Fiction.

"Sometimes, when we lose ourselves in fear and despair, in routine and constancy, in hopelessness and tragedy, we can thank God for Bavarian sugar cookies. And, fortunately, when there aren’t any cookies, we can still find reassurance in a familiar hand on our skin, or a kind and loving gesture, or subtle encouragement, or a loving embrace, or an offer of comfort, not to mention hospital gurneys and nose plugs, an uneaten Danish, soft-spoken secrets, and Fender Stratocasters, and maybe the occasional piece of fiction. And we must remember that all these things, the nuances, the anomalies, the subtleties, which we assume only accessorize our days, are effective for a much larger and nobler cause. They are here to save our lives. I know the idea seems strange, but I also know that it just so happens to be true."