Despicable Me

About a year ago I came across the first teaser trailer for a film called Despicable Me. It was a computer animated film, made by a studio other than Pixar, so that’s always hit or miss. Some non-Pixar films I enjoy – Monsters vs. Aliens – some I could have called the rest of my life complete without having seen – Ice Age 2.

Now I realize that I am not the target audience for the majority of these films. Pixar has spoiled the world by creating films which universally resonate between all age groups. An 80-year old man could walk out of the film Up pining for his departed wife, while an 8-year old boy could walk out quoting his favorite lines from the character Dug. While I’ve yet to find a non-Pixar film which hits me on this kind of emotional level, I have at least found a couple which amuse and entertain.

So when the first teaser for Despicable Me came out, I wasn’t sure what to make of it. To be fair, it was a teaser in the finest sense of the world, giving little to no information about the plot, just a quick flash of some words, some music and a slew of famous names who would be providing voice overs. (Which also tends to be a bad sign. If you have to sell your animated film by the fact that Julie Andrews is playing a bit part… not generally a sign of confidence.) But as subsequent trailers came out, more details became available, and my interest level was at least somewhat stoked.

Then came the infamous “fluffy” trailer which came out this past spring. This is, of course, the trailer where we see the main character, Gru, and his girls at the amusement park. They step up to one of those shoot-down-the-object games in order to win the smallest of the girls a large stuffed unicorn. When the carnival game bests them, Gru uses his own device, destroys the booth, and the little girl is handed her unicorn. She then utters the line which overloaded the cuteness-radar of my fiance, and therefore locked in my plans to see this film – “It’s so FLUFFY!!!”

"Light bulb!"

So about the film. Despicable Me is about the world’s number-one super-villain, a large man with a heavy accent and pointy nose named Gru (voiced by Steve Carell). Gru is a villain in every since of the word, from popping the balloons of children, to cutting in line at Starbucks, and driving a vehicle which emits copious amounts of greenhouse gases, not to mention an army of loyal minions. All is going well until suddenly another contender enters the competition for number-one villain, a character by the name of Vector (voiced by Jason Segel). In an effort to reclaim his title as number-one villain, Gru concocts a plan to steal, what else, the moon. This plan becomes more complicated when three orphan girls come into his life. Now Gru has to balance the demands of being a villain with the new-found responsibilities of being a parent.

The line sure to boost the adoption rate - "It's so FLUFFY!!!"

Ironically, my favorite part of the trailer sums up this film – “It’s so FLUFFY!!!” This film is a lot like cotton candy. It’s filled with fun-colored fluff which is enjoyable, but ultimately the substance is a bit lacking. Now, that’s not to say I didn’t thoroughly enjoy this film. I laughed almost throughout the movie, and it did have a pretty solid core to its plot. It just lacked that emotionally gut-wrenching essence that tends to exist in a Pixar film. Whereas Toy Story 3 gave me pause to reflect on my own life and find deeper connections to the characters and story, Despicable Me gave me some time to laugh and forget about the world for an hour and a half of simple entertainment – a valid purpose as well.

I don’t want to downplay that this film does have an emotional and moral plot line. That’s all good. There is something a bit saddening in that probably 75% of the funny moments are captured in the trailer. But that’s the state of our world today. Trailers give away all the funny moments and when you get to the theatre you end up watching the trailer with 10-minutes of filler between each joke. Despicable Me still proves to be entertaining, and adds some good moments on top of those presented in the trailer. Plus, it throws in a few zingers only adults will pick up on, so keep an eye out for those.

Random Untrue Fact: Every minion has a dollar sign tattoo somewhere on his body.

The minions steal a bit of the limelight of the film,  much like the penguins of the film Madagascar. They provide much of the humor which resonates with smaller children, and the part of all adults that wants an excuse to laugh at silly sounds and goofy antics. In a lot of ways they remind me of the Rabbid characters from the “Rayman Raving Rabbids” series. They were a nice addition to the film, and since they’ve already greenlit both a sequel to the film, and a spin-off for the minions. The question will be if they can stand up on their own without something of substance to back them up.

I heartily endorse seeing this film. It won’t tug very hard at your heart strings, but you will be entertained, you will laugh, and you may want to run out and adopt the smallest child that can utter the phrase “It’s so FLUFFY!!!” as soon as the lights come up. Also, stick around through the first part of the credits, especially if you’re seeing it in 3D. The minions come out and play with the 3D effect. We saw it in 2D, so this wasn’t quite as amusing, but I still don’t feel it would have been necessary to spend the extra money to walk out of the theatre with my depth-perception temporarily altered. But that’s just me.

[Rating:4/5]

The Mummy

Several people commented during our Avatar contest that they would like to see us  review The Mummy (1999). I happen to have a unique perspective on this movie, as it has somehow wormed its way into an odd place in my life. I first saw it in college, and while I didn’t hate it, I felt no interest in sitting through it ever again. Steven Sommers’ obsession with mindless spectacle and pointless deaths was enough to ruffle even my then-adolescent feathers.  I put The Mummy from my mind, and didn’t even bother to check out the over-hyped sequel in the summer of 2001.

Seven years later, I got married, and I learned that The Mummy was one of my wife’s all-time favorite movies. Since it had been so long, and out of affection for her, I gladly endured one more screening. The problem is, one was not enough for her. For the last two years of my life, every time there’s laundry to fold or iron, The Mummy goes in the VCR. I usually try to busy myself in some other room, balancing the checkbook or something, whenever she watches The Mummy. Despite this, I can still hear it, and have learned all the screams of the movie by heart.

So, what’s in The Mummy? We start around 1200 B.C. when Imhotep (Arnold Vosloo), high priest of Pharaoh Sethi I, and Ank Su Namun, the Paraoh’s concubine (Patricia Velasquez, above) conspire to murder Sethi. They take turns hacking him with swords, causing him to go “Aaaggh!” “Eeee!”  “Aaaaa!” Ank Su Namun then kills herself to avoid punishment for the murder. Imhotep later tries to resurrect her, but Sethi’s guards stop him. He is sentenced to be mummified alive for his crimes. (Just for the record, that’s not nearly as bad as it sounds. In real life, you’d be dead halfway through step one.) Some priests cut off his tongue, resulting in a scream that is really more of gasp. Imhotep is then buried alive, and placed under a curse that says, should he be resurrected, he would return as a pestilence to destroy the earth.

Before Scott Evil can jump up and say “Why don’t you just kill him and be done with it?” we are transported to the 1920s. We meet Evelyn Carnahan (Rachel Weisz), a British librarian and Egyptologist, who emits an “Eeeek!” when her brother, Jonathon (John Hannah), makes a mummy pop out of a sarcophagus, startling her. Jonathon has found an artifact that intrigues Evie, and she begins assembling a team to travel deep into Egypt to find the lost city of Hamunaptra. They are joined by Rick O’Connell (Brendan Fraser), an adventurer from the States, and four treasure hunters, along with many other nameless pieces of monster fodder, destined to emit screams.

On the journey, their ship is attacked by fighters who protect Imhotep’s tomb called the Medjai. O’Connell sets one on fire, who jumps off the boat, screaming “Hoo, hoo, hoo-aaaaah!” (splash) Once they arrive at Hamunaptra, three Arabic-speaking guides are melted by acid in a booby trap,

Aaagh!

Aaagh!

Owwie!

A warden has a golden beetle come to life, burrow into his foot, then up his body and into his brain, causing him to go mad and run screaming down a corridor into a wall

Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Smack

And finally, Evie reads from the Book of the Dead, bringing Imhotep back to life. “Noo! You must not read from the book!” As soon as she does, a storm of locust comes up, forcing the adventurers inside the ancient temple that is now stalked by Imhotep. One by one, all the extras are killed either by Imhotep, the beetles, or booby traps, resulting in screams to numerous to transcribe.

They return to Cairo but the Mummy follows them. Four treasure hunters are under a special curse for opening Imhotep’s organ chest, and he kills each of them before moving on to the rest of the world. While the first one dies screaming “No! Please, please, please …” the rest of them go out with more of an “Aaaeeeiiieck*” as Imhotep drains them of their life. Each time he does so, he partially regenerates, until he looks like a living man. Which raises some questions: what would he have done if fewer than four had opened the chest? If no one had opened the chest, but Evie had read from the book, would he have just destroyed the world as a walking corpse? For that matter, since he plans on destroying the world anyway, why bother with these guys?

The Mummy; half-way through his curse victims, so ... 50% regenerated?

The answer is, you have to think like Steven Sommers. For Sommers, making sense is nothing; spectacle is everything. Nothing goes into the “plot” of this movie unless it will lead to either a fight scene or a horrific, screaming death (although the deaths involve an implausible omission of red liquid to keep that all-important PG-13 rating). The curse on Imhotep’s organ chest is nothing more than an aside, crammed into the movie to give Sommers an excuse to kill four more guys.

Frankly, the rest of the movie is pretty much the same thing. More screams, people dying by the hundred, and inane scripture quotations with no meaning. Beth eventually showed me the sequel, and I actually liked it a little better, though I think it was mostly because I had lower expectations. If you’re interested in Sommer’s work, or in Universal Studios monsters, your time would be better spent checking out Van Helsing (2004). It has all the same stupidities as The Mummy, but at least has cooler characters, awesome action scenes, and some really wicked gadgets.

To summarize my impression of The Mummy:

Sitting through it once: “Eh.” (In other words, [Rating:1.5/5])

Being subjected to it over and over:

“Aaaggh!” “Eeee!”  “Aaaaa!”

“Hoo, hoo, hoo-aaaaah!” (splash)

Aaagh!

Aaagh!

Owwie!

Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! Smack

“No! Please, please, please …”

“Aaaeeeiiieck*”

Knight and Day

If “Knight and Day” does anything particularly well, it proves that star-power is absolutely crucial in elevating haphazard writing.  Any hack writer can jot down “Action sequence. Car chase.” and proceed with details regarding grandiose explosion after explosion without one shred of an idea on how to pen stretches of dialogue or convincing human interaction.  Sometimes actors have to fill in the gaps, and their natural talent and improvisation can jack up a lazy script.  Such is the case with the overly-amplified vehicle starring the aging Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz, two veterans in a movie about ten years too late for them, and still looking pretty good for their age.  Heck, who am I kidding?  We have ‘The Expendables’ ready to wreak havoc in a few months, so maybe Cruise and Diaz are shining in their prime.  Either way, their seniority is only one of many winks at the audience throughout “Knight and Day.”

I’ve heard all the rumors surrounding the pain and sweat (and multiple writers) that went into getting this movie to the screen.  While I’m sorry to say the final product isn’t a masterpiece for anyone involved, it does what it can.  I wonder how many writers it actually takes to deliver next to nothing as far as the plot goes.  Seriously, the plot seems to be recycled out of Cruise’s own ‘Mission: Impossible III.’  The punchline of a star turns the punchline on the audience, playing an eccentric and wildfire secret agent, Roy Miller, involving an unsuspecting mechanic, June (Cameron Diaz), in the middle of a one-man war against the F.B.I. (or so they claim they are).  Why is Roy on the run and bagging a bunch of other agents with machine guns?  Well, because they are after a new scientific breakthrough that can antiquate the world’s primary energy sources, and Miller may be out to protect it–or steal it.  For better or worse, June is Miller’s captive, and no matter where she runs, she can’t escape trouble.  To her own dismay and hesitation, she bargains for Miller’s ‘protection’ as he sends her into firestorm of one-man army battles involving warehouse shootouts, freeway chase shootouts, and jumping out of airliners probably involving shootouts.  If you want action, you have action and then some.

Saving this mess of a script is primarily Cruise, whose charisma and self-parody adds a necessary charm and hilarity to the proceedings.  The man knows his current public image, and the only way to absolve it is to acknowledge it and play it up for all it’s worth.  There’s little to no depth to the character of Miller, only a lunatic surface that could be real or fake. Let’s face it, he’s a secret agent and everything he does is for a reason.  Maybe he’s not crazy, but he spends most of his time killing off enemies in the most outrageously dangerous fashion at his disposal.  In fact, I think many audiences will be surprised how violent the film is.  Cruise acts like he’s finished a load of laundry after killing off 30 assassins.  Diaz starts out shocked by all the chaos early on in the film’s opening sequence where Cruise single-handedly takes out a plane full of killers and proceeds to land the airliner.  Gradually she becomes engulfed in her secret agent boy toy and eventually finds herself taking part in the mayhem.  Comedy holds it all together, as Cruise and Diaz riff off each other quite nicely.  They don’t so much create characters as much as exchange banter and crooked looks.  Surprisingly, that’s enough to keep “Knight and Day” in check.  The romance goes out the window–there’s no wild passionate love scenes or heated chemistry between the two–they simply coexist in this whacked out adventure.

James Mangold directed the movie, and to my surprise you would have no idea.  The man has “Walk the Line” and “3:10 to Yuma (2007)” to his credit.   Why he decided to jump into a loosely-plotted action-extravaganza is beyond me.  He may have had a heck of a time divulging in sugar-filled summer filmmaking.  The stars couldn’t be of higher-caliber or more glamorous, the worldwide locations for filming probably made for quite the treat, and the action sequences allow him to go as big as he possibly can.  He pulls it off surprisingly well.  I really have no complaints as generic summer action-pictures go.  This one is for laughs, audacious stunts, and two veteran actors taking ten years off their age or more.  It’s no ‘True Lies,’ but it’s about on par with ‘Mr. and Mrs. Smith.’

[Rating:3.5/5]

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Star Trek IV: The Voyage HomeThe Star Trek franchise is known for many things, but humor is typically not one of them.  The TV shows are enjoyable but largely devoid of out-and-out humor, aside from a few tongue-in-cheek quips that would only make sense to avid Trek fans.  And the original series was often funny, but unintentionally so.  When the series was making somewhat of a comeback in the 1980s thanks to the original cast starring in a string of Star Trek movies, humor was once again relegated to the backburner or eliminated altogether.  The Star Trek universe, it would seem, was one of adventure, exploration, and soul-searching.  But it sure didn’t seem like it was all that fun.  After the pair of heady soul-searching, philosophizing, and Melleville-quoting, Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock, it was time for the series to lighten up.  And who better to man the director’s chair for Star Trek’s fourth celluloid outing than series straight man Leonard Nimoy, who famously plays the emotionless Spock.

In a classic fish-out-of-water tale, the crew of the Enterprise, whom are now piloting the stolen Klingon ship HMS Bounty, must travel back to earth circa 1986 to find (get this!) a pair of humpback whales (no, really) in order to bring them to the 24th century where (it gets better!) a giant alien probe that only speaks Humpback Whalian (seriously!) is destroying earth as it tries to communicate with the giant water-bound mammals that have been eliminated due to poaching.  The plot is incidental, really, as it’s really just an excuse to inject some lighthearted humor and good old fashioned adventuring into a franchise that was spending far too much time brooding over existential questions of life and death.  The result is a film that easily appeals to a wide range of audiences and doesn’t take itself too seriously, and in doing so becomes one of the best Star Trek movies of all time.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Somehow they got the entire Star Trek cast to shuffle their busy acting schedules around and come back to film a fourth movie.

When Kirk and his intrepid crew arrive in 1986 they are put in a number of situations that are designed to create a deliberate contrast with the Star Trek universe and conventions we all know and love.  Sans transporters and shuttlecraft, the crew must traverse San Francisco on foot, by bus, and the occasional hitchhike. Unaware of 1986 culture, Spock meditates on the purpose of profanity while Dr. McCoy pontificates about the sorry state of “dark ages” medical care.  And in one of the most endearing scenes, Scotty is forced to interact with what was then an ultra-sophisticated piece of computing hardware by using “quaint” input devices such as a keyboard and mouse.  There’s even a good joke made at the expense of Chekov’s native tongue as he attempts to ascertain directions to the nuclear vessels.  It’s all played for laughs, and comes off as heartwarming, endearing, and downright enjoyable–adjectives that are not often applied to Star Trek outside of certain circles of geekdom.

Of course Kirk and Spock are the stars of the show, and Kirk plays his usual Alpha Captain character to the hilt, even wining and dining (if pizza and beer count) the female marine biologist Gillian (Catherine Hicks) in order to get information about the humpback whales in her charge at the local marina. Star Trek IV deftly walks a line between catering to the fans (at one point Kirk pawns the specs that McCoy gave him as a birthday present in Star Trek II, only to postulate that the very act of hawking the glasses is what ultimately leads to McCoy being able to give them to Kirk hundreds of years in the future–a classic Star Trek ontological paradox if there ever was one) and opening the franchise up to a much wider audience.   And in doing so, the series successfully goes where it has never gone before.

Rating:[Rating:4.5/5]

Toy Story 3

Leave it to Pixar Studios to deliver one of the year’s best films in June.  “Toy Story 3” enters the summer arena and livens up screens, delivering as a sequel that can entertain audiences of all ages.

The Toy Story canon kickstarted Pixar and full-on CGI animation back in 1995.  Fifteen years later, the franchise still has juice, as kids that loved the original are now potentially parents taking their little ones to the multiplex.  They should be pleased.  “3” doesn’t just capitalize on a popular title as the last two Shrek sequels have done, but it follows a palpable storyline and takes the series in a logical direction to a fitting conclusion.

Young little Andy isn’t so young and little anymore.  He’s a high-school graduate off to start a new chapter in college.  In the process of cleaning out his bedroom, he is forced to decide what to do with his childhood toys.  His mother says to bag them up for storage in the attic or toss them in the trash.  Most of the gang (including Buzz, Rex, Mr. and Mrs. Potatohead, Ham, etc.) get bagged up for the attic, while Andy decides to keep his favorite toy, Woody.  Due to a misunderstanding, Andy’s mother assumes the bagged up toys are headed for the trash.  Woody makes a last ditch effort to save them, and the toys escape the garbage truck and land themselves in a box of used toys headed for Sunnyside Daycare.  Upon arrival, the toys believe they have found the perfect paradise to find affection and purpose from children all day long, while Woody has his doubts and begs his friends to head back to Andy’s.  The gang makes the decision to stay, and Woody is left on his own.  Soon enough, the toys realize they are meager pawns for destructive toddlers to torment.  Looking to escape, the the group faces opposition from a soul-scarred purple bear named Lotso who has taken control of Sunnyside and will not allow the new toys to leave.  Woody gets word of how destructive and enslaving his friends’ situation has become, and plans a rescue mission to save them.

Following in the footsteps of the previous “Toy Story” films, the final installment stands just about as classic, but probably for different reasons than one might expect.  The plot actually heads into some very dark and dramatic territory as issues of abandonment, imprisonment, purpose and demise culminate the proceedings.  Where the first two films may have been a little more lighthearted and comedy-driven, “Toy Story 3”, while still having its humor, actually builds out of heartbreak, stirred emotion, and a lot of suspense.  In some ways, I was surprised this secured a G-rating.  Pixar’s creative team of writers have recently excelled at exploring deeper thematic material in brilliant ways.  I think of man’s destruction of Earth in ‘Wall-E’ to the loss of a significant other in ‘Up.’  “Toy Story 3” continues that trend.  The film is smart enough for adults and entertaining enough for kids.  Luckily, the entire cast of voice actors return and bring back these characters we all know and love.  Forget the 3D, it’s not necessary.  See “Toy Story 3” for its brilliant writing, its comedic value, its dramatic nature, and its expert animation.

[Rating:4.5/5]

It’s Complicated

It's ComplicatedSeveral years ago there was a television show called Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous wherein heavily-accented host Robin Leach would indulge viewers in glimpses of how people who were, well, rich and famous, lived their everyday lives. For the ten-year run of the show, viewers were entranced with visions of indoor swimming pools, personal chefs, expensive vehicles, and extravagant wardrobes.  It was escapist television, and offered a snapshot of what life could be like for the mortal average guys and gals who punched in at nine and out at five.  Watching It’s Complicated is kind of like Leach’s show, save for the fact that we are asked to possess a certain degree of empathy for the characters, specifically divorcee Jane (Meryl Streep) as she struggles with feelings of attraction to her ex-husband Jake (Alec Baldwin) while simultaneously being courted by her architect Adam (Steve Martin).  But in watching these highbrow socialites as they struggle through midlife crises, empathy is somewhat hard to come by.  Fortunately the movie doesn’t take itself too seriously, and provides enough lighthearted humor to be entertaining, if rather forgettable.

It's Complicated Jake

Give it up, Alec...you'll forever be Jack Donaghy in our minds. :)

The casting of It’s Complicated is as smart as they come, and it’s nearly worth the price of admission alone to see Alec Baldwin slipping into his role like a pair of comfy jeans.  After ten years of divorce, Jake is unhappily remarried to a typical Stock Hollywood Annoying Wife Character #4-C Agness (Lake Bell) with Stock Hollywood Bratty Kid #3-F Pedro (Emjay Anthony) in tow.  As luck (or movie logic) would have it, Jake and Jane meet up in the bar of the hotel where they are staying for their son’s graduation from NYU.  Sure enough, they hook up for the night and spend the next few days re-thinking their lives along with a series of romantic trysts at Jane’s new house.

Meanwhile Adam continues to develop feelings toward Jane, which leads to a bit of a conundrum for Jane:  Does she reunite with her ex-husband, with for whom she is beginning to develop some serious feelings of affection, or does she go for the Adam, the safe bet who is searching for love after a few years of his own divorce?  Despite the movie’s title, it’s actually not all that complicated, and this type of love triangle is nothing we haven’t seen before.  Streep and Baldwin have an infectious screen chemistry, and much of the fun of the movie comes from watching the two of them romp around like a pair of twitterpated high school lovebirds.  Martin’s incredible talent seems woefully underused, though, and only has a handful of truly funny scenes throughout the entire movie.

It's Complicated Meryl Streep Steve Martin

Jane and Adam, looking for love in all the wrong places. Like behind a lilac bush.

It’s Complicated plays on the premise of relationship confusion, something all of us have gone through. But Streep’s problems really don’t seem all that bad–she is the owner of a posh cafe where a single croissant will set you back over $10, she’s got a good relationship with her children, and has a group of Stock Hollywood Divorced Friends #6B-F with whom to gossip and eat pastries.  And Jack seems to be doing pretty well with his new marriage, even though his wife exhibits such egregious character flaws as wanting to know why he is out at all hours of the evening and why he seems to be having secret conversations on his cell phone.

Despite the somewhat questionable logic at work here, director Nancy Meyers must be commended for crafting a film that does not cater to the lowest common denominator:  though It’s Complicated secured an R rating, typical scatalogical gags, bathroom humor, and even swearing are almost nowhere to be found.  It’s a film that tries to be an exploration of midlife crises, past regrets, second chances, and horribly awkward video iChat sessions.  Ultimately it feels a little hollow, but at the same time it’s enjoyable as an escapist fantasy.  These individuals live in a world far removed from my own, and that of everyone else I know, and their fairly inconsequential problems and supposedly complicated relationships are a bit of an insult to the real people with actual problems and genuinely complicated relationships who will be watching the movie.  But sometimes it’s good to just sit back and enjoy a lighthearted movie for what it is.

Rating:[Rating:3.5/5]

Date Night

“Date Night” is everything its trailers don’t make it appear to be–a hugely entertaining, rowdy, wacky slapstick film featuring two comic geniuses.  Steve Carell and Tina Fey, two major stars of the two biggest sitcoms on NBC, have an exciting chemistry that carries this goofy, mainstream film to glorious heights.

The duo plays a middle-aged suburban married couple out for a night in New York City.  After attempting to get a table at a fancy seafood restaurant, they are shot down cold, and decide to take the reservation of the seemingly absent Tripplehorns.  Toward the end of their meal, two thugs arrive at their table and escort them out, quickly waving guns in their faces and demanding an important flash drive from them.  Mayhem ensues as these two spend the night dodging crooked cops, mobsters, and bullets in the midst of a go-to mistaken identity plot.

Luckily for Director Shawn Levy (Night at the Museum II, yikes), this very mainstream script can’t bog down Fey and Carell.  The two make an unstoppable pair when Levy stops the action in favor of their witty banter and improvisation.  Add in some entertaining cameos from James Franco, Mila Kunis and supporting player Mark Wahlberg, and “Date Night” is a very funny, entertaining, action-romance-comedy serving up shameless mainstream hijinks.  With the weight on the shoulders of Carell and Fey, this potential disaster of a movie, turns into the perfect date night movie.  I really enjoyed it a lot more than I anticipated.

[Rating:4/5]

Tommy Boy

Like most people, I missed Tommy Boy during its initial run in theatres.  In my freshman year of high school I didn’t watch Saturday Night Live, had only a vague knowledge of Wayne’s World, and knew nothing of David Spade, Chris Farley, or even Rob Lowe.  It was not until my senior year when some friends and I popped in the VHS tape at a party somewhere and I was introduced to the Tommy and Richard, one of the greatest comic duos of all time and the perfect embodiment of what it means to have chemistry between actors.  Even then, like the first time I saw This Is Spinal Tap, I didn’t quite get it.  It was funny, sure, but even after watching the movie I didn’t understand why all my friends were going around singing “Fat guy in a little coat?” and shouting “Shut up, Richard!”  The story of Tommy’s transition from a rugby-playing college flunkie to kind-of grown up and responsible brake pad salesman was amusing, but I found the movie to be, at best, amusing, but not out-and-out hilarious. In subsequent years, though, I have come to realize how solid, witty, charming, and yes, downright hilarious this tale of the oddest of couples really is.  Having just watched it again recently, and with the added bonus of director Peter Segal’s commentary, I wanted to try to put in to words exactly what makes it such an outstanding film.  This isn’t quite a review (spoiler alert: I give it five stars) as it is an examination of what makes Tommy Boy work so well on such a fundamental level.

Like all good movies, Tommy Boy is first and foremost about the characters and story.  Strip away the jokes, physical comedy, the deer in the car, the killer bees, and Zalinsky’s forehead, and you’re left with the tale of a young man forced to grow up before he is ready, with the weight of the world on his shoulders and dire consequences lest he fail in his quest.  Tommy’s journey mirrors that of the classic hero’s quest found throughout centuries of great literature and in most of the great movies and novels in recent memory as well.  It is the creation of this type of everyman, with no apparent natural abilities to be able to realize his ultimate destiny, that allows the viewers to be so innately drawn in to the story.  Callahan Auto will fall unless someone rises to the challenge of saving it, and though Tommy is entirely ill-equipped to accomplish the task, we cheer for him as he draws Excalibur from the stone and begins his journey that will, if he is successful, save the world of Sandusky, Ohio.  This archetypal character is one that we want to succeed, especially because the odds are so stacked against him–in essence, his victory, we know from the beginning, will be all the more sweet because the obstacles he must overcome are so significant.

Tommy Boy-Lifejacket

Tommy Callahan - The very definition of "Unlikely Hero"

Added to this setup is a powerful familial connection between Tommy and his father, Big Tom, which creates an emotional bond with the viewers as well.  Tommy’s love for his father is almost puppylike–so pure and heartfelt that it would be well-nigh criminal to separate the two.  We see them joking, hugging, and encouraging each other, and though Big Tom knows his son is ill-equipped to run the factory, he is eager to take him under his wing and show him the ropes, that one day he may be ready to take his rightful place as the head of Callahan Auto.  And so when Big Tom succumbs to a heart attack in the middle of his wedding, also on the eve of one of the realization of one of the greatest triumphs of his career, the event is all the more tragic for the relationship it destroys, not just the life it ends.  This type of emotional core is sorely lacking in most comedies–we are often asked to root for the main character, but we rarely encounter such a harsh injustice played with such emotional honesty.  The funeral is scene is entirely straight-faced with no hint of comedy, and even Richard yelling “Somebody call 911!” after Big Tom falls unconscious shows us that he is far more concerned for his boss than he might let on at work.  All of us have lost loved ones, and as Tommy walks away from his father’s grave, alone, with the autumn leaves blowing, it stirs emotions that are rarely, if ever, seen in movies with catchphrases like “Holy schnikes” and lines like “If you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time.”

And so early on in the film we have Tommy, the lovable unlikely hero, setting out on his quest to save Callahan Auto with his unlikely partner Richard.  This mismatched duo is another turn of comic genius, and a classic case of if-it-ain’t-broke-don’t-fix-it on the part of Segal.  For decades, odd pairings like this have worked well for comedies, and Segal wisely doesn’t stray too far from the formula here.  In fact, he practically defines the formula.  Farley is the perfect foil to David Spade’s straight man in almost every way:  Richard is street- and book-smart, while Tommy squirts ketchup packets into his own mouth. Richard knows everything about the auto parts business, while Tommy knows almost nothing at all. Richard is confident, and Tommy is shy and confused in the real world.  But the pairing works in the opposite direction too:  Tommy is deeply social, exuberantly joyful, and has no trouble making friends–all qualities that Richard sorely lacks, and comes to appreciate by the end of the story.  Add to this Tommy’s whale-sized body next to Richard’s toothpick frame and you have one of the most fully-realized and perfectly-cast mismatched couples in movie history.

Tommy Boy - Richard

Tommy and Richard, one of the great mismatched duos in film history.

The conflicts set up in Tommy Boy function on several levels from physical, with the continued destruction of Richard’s mint-condition GTX Convertible, to interpersonal, emotional, romantic, and even metaphysical when Tommy is in need of “a little wind” at the very end. Tommy must overcome his personal demons and weaknesses, but also deal with the harshest of human conflicts, betrayal at the hand of his loved ones.  All good hero stories must involve a dragon for the hero to slay, and Tommy Boy has two:  Tom must deal with his inability to sell brake pads, but also confront his new-found stepmother and stepbrother and stop them from selling the company.  Keep in mind that Tommy’s mother had passed away, and Beverly’s betrayal makes the wound all the more deeper for him.  This type of layered, multifaceted conflict structure is far more than what we would expect from a movie with a fat guy in a little coat, and while it’s no Godfather or Citizen Kane, Tommy Boy certainly has a far deeper and more emotional plot than most comedies, if not most movies altogether.

After facing trials, overcoming his inner demons, and triumphing as a salesman, Tommy must confront the King (of Auto Parts) himself, Ray Zalinski, and in doing so proves his worth as a man to himself and the entire Callahan Auto Parts company.  Whereas Beowulf set out to slay the monster Grendel, Tommy set out to save the town of Sandusky from the monster Zalinski.

While the importance of physical comedy Tommy Boy, as well as the brilliance of Chris Farley’s portrayal of Tommy, cannot be overstated, it is also worth noting that the movie rarely delves into the cesspool of scatalogical gags, cursing, and cheap jokes that plague so many comedies today.  Whereas most comedies rely on trotting out a series of cardboard-thin characters and inserting all manner of gross-out jokes with cheap shocks designed to elicit a laugh or two, Tommy Boy dares to suggest that a solid script with deep and heartfelt characters can be far more funny and certainly more memorable than most of its contemporaries.

Rating:[Rating:5/5]