The Kendricks have ramped the action up a notch with this one. Right at the beginning, we see Fireproof’s Ken Bevel, returning as Nathan Hayes, stop for gas, only to have his truck stolen by a dew-rag clad gang-banger (T.C. Stallings, a devoted husband and father in real life). He throws himself half-way through the driver’s window, and we are treated to a fist-fight with Nathan hanging out the window at 30 miles an hour. The movie eventually leads up to a climactic scene with guns blazing. In between is more action, more than a few laugh-out-loud moments, and a heart-felt message about how crucial a father is to a child’s development, and how those without fathers often become dew-rag clad truck thieves.

The story follows Deput. Hayes, a recent transfer to the department, three other Deputies, Adam Mitchell (Alex Kendrick), Shane Fuller (Kevin Downes), and David Thompson (Ben Davies), and Javier Martinez (Robert Amaya), a rarely employed construction worker, and their families. Javier breaks his back to provide for his family and eventually finds employment working on Adam’s house. He then becomes part of the group. David is the rookie of the squad who’s holding in a shameful secret. He has a daughter around three years of age, whom he has never met, and whose support he had not contributed a dime to. (Apparently, the Georgia Division of Child Support Services was vaporized along with the A.P.D.) Shane struggles to be a dad to his son when he only sees him every other weekend.  Adam dotes on his daughter but refuses to join his son for the father-son 5K. And Nathan and his wife, Kayla (Elenor Brown), struggle to fend off the “saggy-pants boys” interested in their teenage daughter.

A tragedy eventually forces these men to reevaluate what they are doing as fathers. The story dives into Christian kitsch for awhile. Adam comes up with a written resolution and the five families actually hold a ceremony with their pastor in which they dramatically recite it. In a similar vein, we later see Nathan take his daughter to a very expensive restaurant (below), where he, again with great ceremony, presents her with a “promise ring.” Yeah, I know. I chortled at this scene, too, but then I found out my wife had very specific plans for me to do exactly that with our daughter one day.

But for all the kitsch, the film really is trying, and trying to do far more than just entertain. The problems with Courageous mainly serve to highlight the fact that most movies just fill themselves up with explosions and car wrecks and expect you to buy a ticket. Courageous sets the bar much higher, and does come close to clearing it.

There was a time when I would have been unable to enjoy this movie. I can enjoy it now largely because I have a wonderful wife, who makes my life very sweet. That said, there are still some key points of this film I can’t help but take issue with. A lot of the film’s attitude is summed up when Nathan delivers the curmudgeonly line “If fathers just did what they were supposed to, half the junk we see on the street wouldn’t exist.” This seems to be the mantra of conservatives and liberals alike: it’s all men’s fault. But if you look at the history of America over the last 40 years or so, men have not been the only – or even the primary – culprit of the breakdown of the family. History does not tell of a movement of men throwing off their responsibilities to society. We don’t see crowds of men burning their undergarments and demanding the right to kill their children. We don’t even hear men demanding that they be fed and clothed for free. We do, however, see women doing all these things.

Studies show that in the U.S. today, more than two thirds of all divorces are initiated by the woman. And why not? The same political machine that brought us America’s holocaust in 1973 has tilted the legal game board of divorce ridiculously toward the woman’s pockets. (Please note: Every man in Iowa should carefully read chapters 236 and 598 of the Iowa Code before he even thinks about getting emotionally attached to a woman. As for the other states, talk to a lawyer there.) Millions of children in the U.S. grow up without fathers because their mothers want it that way.

My first year out of law school, I worked in a family law firm. I never had a man in my office who didn’t care about his children. Most of my clients were there because they were having to fight just to see their children. The slant in family court is based on more than gender stereotypes.  The judicial community includes many territorial lionesses. A child is power, and they are not about to share it. Conversely, male judges are of the old way of thinking, in which men are expected to take the lumps and bear the weight of the world on our shoulders without complaint. This combination of liberal women and conservative men, not only in court, but also in society, is a frustrating dynamic. While women are exhorted about their rights, men are flagellated with our supposed responsibilities. Lawyers aren’t supposed to get emotionally involved, but I couldn’t help feeling the pain my clients felt. Commanded to be fathers by the right, yet torn from their children by the left; commanded to “be a man,” yet emasculated.

Courageous never addresses any of this, failing to live up to its name. The Kendrick brothers buckle under the pressure of political correctness. Too afraid to take women to task for their desertion, like so many before them, they turn on men.

It’s hard to stay angry at a movie that has this much heart, and is actually trying to make a difference in the world. But while it’s a valiant effort, another Fireproof it is not.  Fireproof met

Actor-director Alex Kendrick takes aim at bad fathers.

people squarely where they were at. There’s no reason 3 billion men couldn’t have connected with Caleb Holt, the fire chief who shows valor in the work place, but doesn’t know how to love his wife. The story eventually shows that the only way he can do so is by first receiving the unconditional love of God. It would actually  have been fairly simple for Courageous to do the same thing. Shane Fuller is a character that millions of men would easily connect with, including unbelievers. He is divorced. He wants to be a father to his son, but, as he explains it, he only gets him every other weekend, after his mother has filled his head with her toxic opinions of him. He wants to provide for his son, but almost a third of his paycheck is swallowed by alimony. Shane should have been the lead role of this movie! He could have been the Caleb Holt of Courageous. How can Shane, and other men, be the kind of fathers God wants them to be, despite the obstacles? How can God help them to raise their kids right despite what they have  to deal with? This was a golden opportunity for the Kendricks to win the hearts of their intended audiece. Beating up on men will do nothing to fix the family. Ministering to broken men where they are at will do a lot more.

Sadly, Shane is confined to a small role as the bad cop we’re not supposed to like, and Courageous preaches to the choir. Most of the focus is on Adam, Nathan and Javier, who all have perfect wives, straight out of a Christian fantasy.

Overall, I recommend seeing Courageous. There’s a lot of great moments I didn’t want to spoil here. The fact that I can even disagree with it shows it had more of a brain than most movies. It’s not easy to make a movie that ministers. I still laughed and I was still swept along by the story. It was good to see Christian cinema taking another (mostly) positive step.

Number four at the box office in October of 2011. High-five!

***½~ (3.5/5)

In the 1940s, young reporter Tintin (Jamie Bell) purchases a model collector’s ship, the Unicorn, that immediately thrusts him into danger.  The model contains a riddle and secret code, but what does it mean and where does it lead?  Accompanied by his trustworthy pup, Snowy, Tintin must elude several dangerous characters seeking to steal his rare artifact.  This leads the young adventurer to Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis), a notorious drunk who may be the key to solving the secret of the Unicorn.

With Tintin, the infamous Steven Spielberg finally returns to light up cinemas following a 3-year absence.  Ironically, this film may have more in common with Raiders of the Lost Ark than his last disappointing outing with the famed archeologist. Tintin is full of exciting mystery and grandiose action sequences, brilliant animation, shades of inviting humor, and a gorgeous 3D presentation.  This is easily the best animated film I’ve seen all year, and contains one of the year’s most entertaining action sequences, live-action or animation.

As for the motion-capture technique, Spielberg and Jackson know what they’re doing here.  I’ve found the work done by Robert Zemeckis (who’s recently been obsessed with the technology) over the last seven years to be a total snooze.  The Polar Express, Beowulf, and Christmas Carol never got it quite right despite painstaking efforts to be sure.  Tintin, however, is a visual marvel.  The animation is spot-on, and the performances behind the characters onscreen, chief among them Jamie Bell, Daniel Craig, and Andy Serkis, are uniformly excellent.

The film ends with the setup for another adventure, and I hope American audiences seek out The Adventures of Tintin, as it is not a well-known property here.  Forget about needing to know anything.  Walk in blind and let the film dazzle you from beginning to end.

****½ (4.5/5)

The story focuses on Segel’s character’s brother, Walter, a puppet and die-hard fan of the Muppets which were hugely popular in the 1970s.  Now in 2011, the Muppets have disappeared and scattered across the states finding cheap venues to perform in.  When Walter tours the run-down Muppet studio, he discovers the maniacal plot of a wealthy investor (Chris Cooper) to turn the studio into rubble and drill for oil on the property.  Walter seeks out Kermit the Frog to regroup the old band once again and put a show together within a matter of days to save their contract by raising $10 million before they lose all rights to their studio.

Much of the film builds up to the clan reuniting, showcasing a slew of celebrity cameo appearances. Witty zingers bounce off the walls.  Outrageous musical numbers abound—chief among them Chris Cooper’s rapping and the chicken-ized version of Cee Lo Green’s ‘Forget You.’  This is all good fun.

However, I wanted The Muppets to return loud and proud, and despite an admirable effort on the part of everyone involved, I can’t shake a slight feeling of being… underwhelmed. However, I enjoyed the film more often than not. It’s witty and clever in most of the right places. The film simply lead me on the entire time, as though it hinted that something big and amazing was about to happen, but never actually surfaced. Still, this is good fun for what it is and a welcome return for the Muppets.

***~~ (3/5)

Ben Stiller plays Josh, the GM of the most luxurious condo tower in New York.  His most pricey client, Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda), has been convicted of all kinds of money-dealing wrongs.  This guy has so much dough, the floor of his rooftop pool features a 100-dollar bill design.  He owns a 1953 ferrari once driven by Steve McQueen—and the car was disassembled and then reassembled in Shaw’s living room.

Josh mistakenly offered the handling of company pensions to Shaw, only to find out that all of it was lost to Shaw’s scheming.  An FBI agent (Tea Leoni) having pity on Josh and his situation, informs him that $20 million or so of Shaw’s cash has yet to be found.  Josh believes he knows exactly where it is.  In an attempt to redeem himself and get his people’s money back, Josh assembles a group of dopes, including Affleck, Broderick, Pena, and Murphy to break into Shaw’s penthouse and rob a safe built within one of the condo walls.

Ratner has all the production values required for a major heist picture like this, but in his attempt to combine Rush Hour and Ocean’s Eleven, he fails in deliver a weak script without any wiggle room for his comedic stars to shine.  Eddie Murphy is vastly underused.  Audiences will eat up his scenery chewing harkening back to his glory days from the 80s.  Murphy really hasn’t been this funny in quite some time, but he enters the movie late in the game and gets very little to do.  Stiller plays the straight guy.  He has nothing to do here other than play an unlikely hero and leader of the pack, acting as the only character with enough smarts to pull off a heist of such caliber.  Broderick, Affleck, and Pena play the fillers: bumbling, dopey, and intended for laughs.  I never found them interesting or believable enough to laugh at.

Luckily, Ratner wraps the film up in 90 minutes.  I could view this as a perfectly acceptable time-killer, but it deserves to be hilarious and fun.  Tower Heist has moments of what could have been.  Murphy jibing Stiller about his asthma attacks in elementary school.  The guys trying to prove themselves worthy to thief-expert Murphy by robbing $50 of goods apiece from a shopping mall.  A classic ferrari dangling from the top of a skyscraper as a trio of guys hang from the car.  These moments definitely help make the film come alive occasionally, but for the most part, nothing else here elevates Tower Heist from being little more than a Saturday afternoon watch on cable.

**~~~ (2/5)

Maybe it’s just me, but I can hardly get past the exposition of a movie that asks me to identify with characters like this.  They live lives that are so contrived, so perfect, that when the inevitable single problem crops up that they just can’t deal with, my brain just checks out.  Click certainly isn’t the first movie to be guilty of this, but it is the most recent one I have watched.  And this phenomenon gets under my skin every time.

If you’re an Adam Sandler fan, you’ll probably find a lot to like here: sophomoric jokes, kids using bad language (gee, an eight-year-old said a swear word…it’s funny!), empty-headed women with no inherent worth or ambition and who exist solely to support the childlike men in their lives…basically standard Hollywood fare.  Not that I’m jaded or anything, it’s just that this movie brings nothing new to the table except for a wild-haired Christopher Walken who steals every scene he is in.

Yup, Michael Newman sure does have it rough.

The remote that Newman ends up buying from Bed Bath and Beyond, in what is one of the most shameless examples of product placement ever committed to celluloid: after driving past a Best Buy and Target, both of which are closed, he ends up at BB&B where he spends several minutes admiring the aisles filled with products gallantly catering to suburban consumerism before walking down a hallway simply labeled “Beyond.” It’s as if the film itself is interrupted by a lengthy commercial for the strip-mall purveyor of fluffy towels and soda-makers. I understand that product placement is necessary in many cases to help finance modern films, but this was just ridiculous, and it exemplified the over-the-top nature of the entire movie. Soon enough Newman is standing in a warehouse with Walken, an eccentric character with a magical remote that allows the user to rewind, pause, mute, and fast-forward his or her way through life.

It’s the kind of gag that would have worked well in a five-minute Saturday Night Live sketch, but quickly wears thin here.  Watching Newman mute his ever-nagging wife is kind of funny once, but the joke goes on and on and on.  Fast-forwarding through awkward dinners, pausing his son’s backyard baseball game and re-aiming the ball so it smacks the annoying neighbor bully directly in the face…and this continues for pretty much the entire rest of the movie.  Oh sure there’s a moral lesson about spending time with family that’s laid on so thick at the end I could barely stop my eyes from rolling, but most of the film is about as boring and predictable as almost any other Sandler flick. Nothing new to see here, folks.  Move along.

Rating:*½~~~ (1.5/5)

The Green Lantern is a much maligned superhero. People are quick to dismiss him because *snort!* “His weakness is yellow! How pathetic is that?” The thing you have to remember is that Green Lantern mythology is not meant to be taken at all literally. While many superhero stories fit pretty well into the science fiction category, Green Lantern is thoroughly fantasy; it seeks to make sense only in a metaphorical or symbolic way. And while the events on screen are impossible to take seriously, they still capture the universal human experience. A good example is the GL-centrered espisode of Justice League “Despero,” which takes place on another planet, but spells out the very earthly themes of  seduction by power and the spirit to resist oppression. It’s the same with this movie. Green
is the color of will. Yellow is the color of fear. As Corps General Sinestro (Mark Strong) explains, “it is fear that stops will; stops you from acting.” That’s why yellow can stop green.

This film does a really good job of bringing Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) and company to the big screen. The origin story is, of course, the necessary evil of every super hero film, and like many films this one has been criticized for being light on action. There’s some truth to that, but, to be honest, I really didn’t notice. Writer Greg Berlanti draws the audience into the story so well, and the cast (especially Reynolds) fills out their roles so well, that mind-blowing action isn’t really necessary.

One interesting development: for obvious reasons, a few years ago, DC began to think that GL creating tanks and tigers from his ring to chase the bad guys was a bit … cartoonish, and so Justice League
limited his power to creating energy shields, lasers and the like. In Green Lantern, the cartoonishness is back, with Hal whipping out gatling guns and roadsters at every turn. But the biggest surprise of all is probably that they make it work pretty well. The story centers around the Corps’ battle with an entity known as Parallax (oddly named after Hal’s eventual super-villain identity from the comics) and Hal’s struggle to be accepted by the Corps. It also has a few goodies, such as a nod to Sinestro’s inevitable slide into super-villiandom, and one absolutely priceless moment that backhands the secret identity complexes of superheroes everywhere.

So how does Green Lantern stack up? It doesn’t have the gritty reality of The Dark Knight, the heart-warming inspiration of Iron Man, or the powerful iconography of Superman Returns. But it’s still a solid adaptation of an under-rated franchise that’s worth checking out.  Incidently, so is the animated Green Lantern: First Flight. Green Lantern is clearly better than:

Electra

The Fantastic Four

The Fantastic Four 2

The Punisher

Spiderman 2

Hulk.

And probably at least as good as:

Ghostrider

Daredevil

Spiderman 3

X2: X-Men United

Iron Man 2

Wolverine

So stop knocking it. If nothing else, the color green has been proven to reduce stress, and this movie has it in spades.

***~~ (3/5)

If a motion picture dictionary were to define the term ‘sequelitis,’ The Hangover Part II would be pictured alongside it. And that’s the least of the film’s problems. Perhaps I’m predisposed to loathe this sequel, and I will openly admit to that. While watching Part II, I remembered sitting in a History of Comedy class two years ago and the professor asked the students to list the five greatest comedies in film or television of all time. To my astonishment and complete disagreement, The Hangover swept the votes with nearly ¾ of the students naming it the funniest movie ever made. Say what?

Obviously I missed the boat. In my humble opinion, for every joke that the original Hangover hit spot-on, there was about ten that flopped. Audiences not digging Part I will certainly not have a change of heart with Part II. In fact, even if you enjoyed Part I, you will likely find yourself less satisfied this time out. The blueprint for this Hangover is nearly identical to the last. Expecting as much, I still found the movie to be a disappointment as a (keyword: funny) comedy.

Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married in Bangkok to his beautiful young bride, Lauren (Jamie Chung). The entire wedding party and guests are being flown out to a resort in Thailand, including Phil (Bradley Cooper), Doug (Justin Bartha), and—regrettably for Stu—Alan (Zach Galifianakis). Phil convinces Stu to have one beer with the guys at a bonfire on the beach. One beer and some marshmallows later, fade to black. Phil, Stu, and Alan wake up in a dump hotel somewhere in Bangkok feeling foggy, looking disheveled, and presumably clueless. Alan’s head is bald. Stu has a Mike Tyson tattoo on his face. And a monkey is loose in the room.

What’s worse? A severed finger revealed to belong to Lauren’s sixteen-year-old little brother Teddy (Mason Lee) has emerged. The guys have no idea what happened, and Teddy is nowhere to be found. It has happened again. Panicked and desperate, the Wolfpack runs wild through the streets of Bangkok piecing together the previous evening’s wild events in order to find their young missing companion.

So… instead of Vegas we have Bangkok. A missing tooth is now a tattoo on the face. A tiger in the hotel has changed to a drug-dealing monkey. The baby has been replaced a by a silent monk in a wheelchair. Missing Doug is now missing Teddy. Stu’s female prostitute in Vegas has been exchanged for a transsexual prostitute. An annoying Asian mobster leaping out of the trunk of a car is now an annoying Asian mobster leaping out of a freezer. Sorry to spoil some of the events, but being that you’ve seen the first Hangover, you won’t be surprised by much of anything happening this time around. Hangover Part II simply does everything the first film does while lowering the bar on all counts. This one is darker and more twisted with absolutely nothing new to offer audiences. Shock has completely dominated over surprise this time, and for that very reason I found the film to be a near-total disaster.

That being said, keep in mind the 2009 original did little for me. While I did find a few good laughs, overall I wasn’t a fan. Sticking close to what worked before, the three principal characters remain. The writers don’t even let Bartha’s character in on the mayhem again this time around—and he’s not even the missing friend. He soberly awaits the return of his friends back at the resort. At least his addition could have given viewers a change of pace. Since no character other than Alan is humorous, which is again the case, the film relies on outrageous situational comedy. Unfortunately once again, most of the situations are violent and off-putting rather than clever and funny. Or maybe I just have no love for these characters and what they can never remember.

For those with Hangover love, Hangover II will probably be another winner even if you don’t find it as funny as the first (which I can almost guarantee). No one involved in the sequel likely had the mindset they were topping the first picture. I’m sure tears of dollars signs were running down their joy-filled faces as they signed the dotted line for another greenlight. The script is plagued with flat-lined jokes that continued to fall well below the least common denominator while remaining tightly within the formula of Part I.  If only the film would’ve been released in 3D… That way Alan could have leapt out of the screen and given me one of those marshmallows. Then I could wake up tomorrow morning without the slightest clue that I saw The Hangover Part II. Oh wait… who am I kidding? That would be straying too much from formula.

*½~~~ (1.5/5)

Depp is back in full form playing the iconic swashbuckler we all adore.  Capt. Jack Sparrow is again a wanted man when he is ordered by the King of England to reunite with Barbossa (Rush) on an expedition to discover and secure the Fountain of Youth.  Rumors have been spreading that Jack is assembling a crew in secret to embark on his own journey.  Sparrow becomes puzzled by the talk and comes to realize an ex-lover has been impersonating him.  Her name is Angelica (Penelope Cruz), and she’s found herself first-mate and daughter to Blackbeard (Ian McShane), a sorcerer of a pirate aboard a ship with supernatural power.  Sparrow is duped into joining Angelica and Blackbeard, while Barbossa and his Englishmen as well as enemy Spaniards trail close behind.  Along the way, Jack must play for multiple sides—remaining under the watchful eye of Blackbeard while secretly keeping the English under little speculation.

In all honesty, franchise writers Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio bring little to the table as far as the scale of the journey goes.  The film delivers most of its goods within the first 30 minutes as our scurvy hero dodges English capture through a series of elaborate escapes and classic Jack Sparrow antics.  Once he meets up with Angelica and hits the seas with Blackbeard, On Stranger Tides loses its stride and becomes an increasingly long lull of weak plot threads.  The actual quest for the Fountain of Youth is such a disappointment.  I felt as though none of the characters had a genuine interest or drive in finding it.  There’s some talk of Blackbeard wanting to find it to potentially save his soul, however, it’s never a pressing matter.  Barbossa cares none for it.  He wants revenge on a particular foe.  Angelica seems to be after it for her father’s sake, but since he doesn’t care so much, why should we?  I really don’t think the writers thought this one out.

Making matters worse is the fact that nothing particularly memorable or exciting happens throughout the film.  The different groups of treasure hunters encounter a horde of deadly mermaids, but that’s about all the film has to offer audiences that could be considered new or remotely memorable.

This sequel has been directed by Rob Marshall (Nine, Chicago).  I will commend him on tightening up the story and presenting a much more simple and logical narrative than Gore Verbinski’s last venture At World’s End.  However, as disappointing as many audiences found the two-part sequels from 2006 and 2007, I can’t imagine them finding a more refurbished product with On Stranger Tides.  ’Stranger’ this film is not, and if the last two predecessors had anything going for them—it was that they were at least simultaneously odd and interesting, while also boasting several impressive and memorable effects-filled action sequences.  The previous chapters were way ahead of On Stranger Tides in terms of creativity, and when they failed, they did so grandly.  This chapter storms in and teeters out with little more than a sigh.

Despite the film’s many shortcomings, I can’t fault Depp.  He delivers as always, and the Sparrow character still entertains in high fashion.  Unfortunately his movies aren’t keeping up with him, and while On Stranger Tides will undoubtedly make less than any of the previous Pirates, there will still be plenty of coin to lap up—warranting audiences another sequel.  My suggestion?  Ditch Marshall.  Bring back the strangeness, the surprise, and the suspense.  Savvy?

**½~~ (2.5/5)

So, I decided to try it. It was a few months ago that I was introduced to Xtranormal.com, the website that allows ordinary people to make movies by selecting characters and locations from a menu, and typing dialogue. And I have to admit, having actually put my nose to the grind stone, that … movie making is really easy! I don’t know why all those studios, with billions of dollars at their disposal, couldn’t get it right, when I did this with a laptop and a few hours. I’m partly joking of course, but I do want to draw attention to three good things that Xtranormal will contribute to the American cinema: One, it puts a bit more of the power in the hands of ordinary people to counteract the Hollywood propaganda machine. Two, you can’t fill your movie up with car chases and explosions, so it forces the audience to focus on dialouge. And three, most of the people who will use Xtranormal will likely be people who have something worthwhile to say to the world, as I did when I made the film below. Enjoy.

So what’s left to write about?  A lot, actually.

Frank Drebin, kicking criminal behinds and taking names...if only he could find a notepad.

Nearly every comic send-up today owes a huge debt to comedies like The Naked Gun and its forebears, Top Secret! and of course Airplane! (Because sometimes a title just needs an exclamation mark to, you know, really nail the point.) These types of spoofs work well because they offer pitch-perfect parodies of their subject matter (police movies, Elvis movies, and disaster movies, respectively) while never taking themselves seriously.  The Naked Gun, like most good parodies, has a plot that would actually work well in and of itself: the queen of England is coming to town, but her visit is put in grave danger by the threat of an assassin.  Veteran detective Frank Drebin (Nielsen) is called upon to protect the queen while also investigating the attempted murder of his longtime partner Nordberg (O.J. Simpson, who flexes an impressive set of comedy chops).  This fairly mundane premise offers fertile ground for all kinds of jokes and sight gags, and hardly any scene goes by without some kind of pun, joke, or visual absurdity.  While some fall flat, creators David and Jerry Zucker take a quantity-over-quality joke, flooding the movie with such a massive amount of comic moments that it’s impressive to behold.  From the opening credits, which are shown while the camera sits atop a police car, siren blaring, that careens through all kinds of strange locales including gritty city streets, a car wash, and a suburban living room, we know exactly what kind of movie it’s going to be.

Carey Mahoney. Um...yeah.

Police Academy, by contrast, stumbles from the opening scene and only gets worse from there out.  During the opening credits we are told point blank (violating one of the most basic rules of storytelling, show don’t tell) that the mayor of the city has declared that the police academy will accept anyone regardless of age, physical fitness, or education level.  Get it? Lots of crazy people are going to be put through cop training!  Oh gosh, I wonder what kind of wacky hijinks they will come up with!  …*sigh*…  Sure enough, we get a checklist of stupid characters so generic it almost hurts:  the dumb fat guy, the over-zealous military wannabe, the suave Latino, the silly black guy, the serious black guy, the hot chick, and finally our (supposedly) good-looking bad boy Carey Mahoney (Gutenberg).  Any and all attempts at humor land with a dull thud, such as when the fat guy (honestly, character names don’t even matter) shows up and asks Mahoney about the Academy.  Mahoney, who is desperate to get thrown out of the place, tells him that the Commandant’s house is the main office.  Gee, I wonder what will happen next?  Yup, you guessed it.  The stupid fat guy goes in the front door, continues through the living room, and accidentally walks in on the Commandant’s wife while she is taking a shower.  I mean seriously, it’s such an insipid setup for such a dumb joke I just about shut the movie off right then and there lest I actually get dumber while watching.  And the hope that maybe, just maybe, things would improve.

Nope…every single “joke” is just as stupid.  I honestly tried to find something funny in Police Academy, but like The Hangover, the film relies on raunch, substituting filth for funny.  It’s a startling contrast to The Naked Gun, which is funny because it takes serious situations and turns them on their head in hilarious ways you would never expect.  E. B. White said that analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies. Rather than taking apart an amphibian, I would suggest that anyone interested in finding out what makes something funny just watch The Naked Gun and Police Academy.  Or better yet, just skip the latter and watch The Naked Gun twice.

Rating:

The Naked Gun****½ (4.5/5)

Police Academy½~~~~ (0.5/5)