Fireproof

Firep posterLet’s face it, movies are a waste of time and money, especially considering that the average film has a budget of over $200 million. Every once in a while, however, a true gem comes along that almost vindicates the flood of resources that fuels Hollywood debauchery. The other day I purchased a humble project titled Fireproof. My wife and I watched it together and had one of the best discussions we have had in our marriage.

The production is a bit rough; the acting seems rehearsed at times and the camera work is simple. Not all the actors have the sculpted bodies we’re used to, either. But it’s good enough that I never would have guessed what I learned in one of the extras on the DVD: this film was made entirely by volunteers. Members of Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, GA pooled their resources and their talents, according to their trade, in construction, cinematography, theatre or computer graphics, and on one occasion, a stranger whose house they filmed an action scene next to volunteered his services with a forklift. The result is a film that looks almost as slick as, and is more engaging than, many big-budget Hollywood pictures.

But the most important thing about Fireproof is that it is one of very – very few films in history that have the potential to profoundly impact the lives of those who see them. The beginning gets our attention instantly because it realistically portrays something most people care about and are fearful for – their marriages. A couple of heated exchanges between the primal couple, firefighter Caleb (Kirk Cameron, the only professional actor in the cast) and Catherine (Erin Bethea) Holt, are almost painful to sit through, not because they’re bad but because they’re such a frank portrayal of a marriage falling apart. Catherine eventually tells Caleb she wants out.

In the next several scenes, we see both of them talking to their friends

Caleb Holt at work.

Caleb Holt at work.

about it. I couldn’t help but laugh as Caleb tells Michael, his lieutenant, (Ken Bevel) “I bet she’s whining to all her friends about me right now … and they’re having this big old group hug …” while we see Catherine doing just that. It’s interesting that Michael pushes Caleb to reexamine himself and take responsibility for his part of the problem, while Catherine’s friends instantly agree with her and join her in disparaging Caleb. On the other hand, my wife says I side too much with Caleb.

Caleb’s parents urge him not to get divorced. His father asks him to wait forty days, and sends him a notebook with a hand-written forty-day program called “The Love Dare.” Each entry directs Caleb to do something to show love to his wife, beginning with not saying anything negative to her and increasing from there. Grudgingly, he forces himself through the motions of the first few days. We alternate between chuckling and wincing as Catherine scoffs at and spurns his half-hearted attempts. At one point he tells his father “I feel nothing.” His father reminds him that “you can’t listen to the way you feel at the moment.” This is a welcome change from the brainless follow-your-feelings messages movies spit out.

Calling this program a “dare” is no idle boast. In fact, it’s an understatement. In the United States, it takes two to get married, but only one to get divorced. The only way to stop it is to change your spouse’s mind. This makes it extremely risky for one partner to resist a divorce, because it’s almost impossible, and resisting the divorce when you could be fighting for your rights in the divorce leaves you much more likely to get burned. Fireproof is a story of extreme courage, and going out on a limb for somebody in a way that doesn’t require any special effects, but is no less nail-biting for it.

Caleb Holt at home.

Caleb Holt at home.

Bethea gives a tour-de-force portrayal of a wife’s pain in a marriage going nowhere. One scene where she pours out her heart about how humiliated she feels when Caleb looks at pornography is impossible to forget, and her sadness is infectious as she eats meals and does chores alone.

Cameron plays his role well as a real, relatable American guy, and screen writers Alex and Stephen Kendrick were careful to include a few intense fire rescue scenes to give the movie an ample dose of testosterone. Male audience members will connect easily with Caleb and his longing for respect, need to blow off steam, and yearning for the next big thing.

All of which is the perfect preparation for the pivotal moment in Fireproof, about half-way through. Upon the instructions of day 18, Caleb prepares a candlelit dinner for Catherine, sparing no expense. When she comes home and sees it, she simply looks at him and declares “I do not love you,” and walks out. The next day, Caleb is walking through a wood with his dad, and the rejection is beyond what he can bare. In a cathartic moment, he blurts out

“She’s ungrateful. You’d think after I’ve washed the car, done the dishes, cleaned the house, that she would try to show me a little gratitude. But when I come home, she makes me feel like I’m an enemy. … For the last three weeks I have bent over backwards for her. I have tried to demonstrate that I still care about this relationship. I bought her flowers – which she threw away! I have taken her insults and her sarcasm, but last night was it. I made dinner for her, I did everything I could think of to show her that I care about her, to show value for her. And she spat in my face! She does not deserve this, Dad. How am I supposed to show love to somebody who constantly rejects me?”

I grimaced as Caleb got on his knees, but my wife loved it.

I grimaced as Caleb got on his knees, but my wife loved it.

All of what he’s saying is true, and what turns things around is not that Caleb and Catherine realize how wonderful the other really is. In the following minutes, Caleb realizes that he has never truly loved his wife, and in fact he cannot do so, because, as his dad points out, “you can’t give her what you don’t have.” Everything that Caleb has just accused Catherine of, he has been doing to someone else throughout his life. The movie expresses a profound truth about love: it has to start somewhere. And it can’t start with flawed human beings, but only with the Love for that which is unlovable.

There aren’t many movies everyone should see, but this is one. Fireproof will challenge and inspire audiences to do the hardest, most frightening thing they’ve ever done – to truly love someone, as well as point them to the only way it can happen.

[Rating:5/5]

Waco: The Rules of Engagement

I was only 13 when the tragedy at Waco broke out, and even now much of what I think of when I recall the incident is snippets of David Koresh from evening news footage, images of tanks set against the backdrop of a large civilian compound, and wounded ATF agents being carried to ambulances.  When I saw this movie pop up on my Netflix queue the other day, I was immediately drawn to it, as I have always wanted to know more about just what happened during those early days of 1993 in eastern Texas.  And this movie delivers on that premise–perhaps more than almost any other documentary I have ever seen.

Documentaries can be as subjective as their creators want them to be, and footage, interviews, points of view, and even shooting locations can be manipulated to support any political agenda or other motive that the director has.  Extreme examples of this can be found in any of Michael Moore’s sensationalist films, which can only be called documentaries by the loosest possible definition of the word, and even in other works such as Morgan Spurlock’s faux-indictment of the fast food industry in Super Size Me, and Ben Stein’s biased look at intelligent design in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (which I thought was a good film, but I was fully aware of its political bent and, thus, the biased nature of the material which was being presented).  Waco: Rules of Engagement is surely guilty of these same transgressions to some degree, but without an opinionated narrator advancing the examinations being presented onscreen, and with so much of the footage taken directly from congressional hearings in the years following the tragedy, it lends a greater deal of credibility that many documentaries tend to lack.

This exploration of the Waco tragedy begins by investigating who the Branch Davidians were, outside of the context in which the world came to know them by way of evening news snippets.  They were, as the film shows through interviews and historical footage, a group of Christians who took certain passages of scripture out of context and built an entire eschatological theology around them.  From there, the film explores how Vernon Wayne Howell, a convert to the Branch Davidian brand of theology, gained enough followers to rally around him that he eventually became the leader of the infamous group housed in a compound on the outskirts of Waco.  The television interviews of Howell, who would later change his name to David Koresh, show a man who is entirely convinced of his point of view, but not megalomaniacal or even charismatic–simply compelling in his teaching, despite how misguided they were.

Interviews shown in the film of fellow Branch Davidians also show a group of people who were simply looking for answers, and for whatever reason, found them in Koresh and the end-times theology of the Branch Davidians.  Where the film truly shines, though, is in showing how mishandled and bungled the attacks on the compound, begun by the ATF and carried to a bloody end by the FVI, really were.  Through extensive footage taken from the aforementioned congressional hearings, this film documents incredible lapses in the chain of command, confusion on the part of the agents on the ground, and shows how the situation grew beyond control and ended up in the tragic killing of not only Koresh but dozens and dozens of his followers, many of whom were women and children.

I give this documentary high marks for showing the brutal reality of what went on during those two months, and not exonerating Koresh and his followers from guilt (they were stockpiling massive amounts of weaponry, which Koresh planned to use to defend his compound in what he saw as an inevitable, prophesied, battle between his followers and the forces of Babylon), it gives them a fair shake in the court of public opinion.  For 15 years I thought of the Branch Davidians as “Waco Wackos,” but the reality is that they may have been led astray in their beliefs, but no one, especially women and children, deserves to go out in a plume of fire brought on by government agencies with little more motive than an axe to grind.

World Trade Center

WTC poster

WTC poster

I confess: the second thing that went through my mind on September 11, 2001 (after the horror of the moment, of course) was “this will make a great film someday.” I would be mortified by this, except for the fact that I’m sure every member of my generation thought the same thing, if not as soon. Terrible as the day was, I was feeling a kind of thrill. I hadn’t been there for Pearl Harbor (although I did endure Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor), or for Kenedy’s assassination; moments when the country was instantly unified, if only for awhile. But I was here for a story that would be told and retold through many mediums. Already, I was starting to see the folk heroes that would emerge, the dramatic stories that would be reenacted – and probably embellished – for decades to come, and the moments, poorly filmed in life, that would look so spectacular done in a studio.

Apparently, director Oliver Stone had similar thoughts.

Nicolas Cage as John McLothlen

Nicolas Cage as John McLoughlin

If this sounds terrible, consider the millions of solid citizens who praised the frank depiction of the gore in Saving Private Ryan, or the millions who lined up to see Braveheart again and again. If it makes a difference that these stories happened longer ago, consider that it takes about four to five years for a film to develop from concept to finished product. In the first five years since 9/11 we had already seen two movies about it (Flight 93 was released Jan. 30 of 2006).

John McLothlen, the man.

John McLoughlin, the man.

It has now been three years since Stone’s World Trade Center was released and I first wrote this article. During that time we have seen September 11 return to its status as just another box on the calendar. American culture has gone back to infighting and second-guessing government (Stone himself directed an anti-war ad in April of 2007). This has to raise questions in the alert reader because there are dates far older – December 7, 1941 for instance – that Americans still observe every year. One has to wonder if an ably directed film could reignite American reverence for September 11 (if not what we learned from it).

Micheal Pena as Will Jimeno.

Micheal Pena as Will Jimeno.

Needless to say, however, that wasn’t what WTC was intended to do. Stone intended it as a tribute, probably due the recency of the event. As a tribute, the film delivers. It introduces two folk heros, Port Authority Officers John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) and William Jimeno (Michael Pena), who spend most of the movie under a ton of rubble. Probably the best thing about it is that if anyone who was involved with planning the attacks ever sees it, and they probably will, they will be very disappointed. The jihadis behind the attacks get no attention whatsoever. The crash into the North Tower is heralded only by the shadow of a plane swooping across a building and a muffled explosion. The rest of the film follows several main characters through the rescue efforts. In short, every frame is devoted to the good, the valiance and the victory I hope we all remember from that day.

Will Jimeno, the man.

Will Jimeno, the man.

Decades will come and go, the pain brought on by that day will lessen and the grieving families will be names in dusty historical records. As the subject gets less sensitive, so will the movies. We’ll see body parts fly ala Saving Private Ryan and we’ll get to know the villains. But for now World Trade Center focuses on what should be focused on.

As McLothlen says at the end of World Trade Center, “Nine eleven showed us what human beings are capable of – the evil, sure. But also the good. People looking out for each other, for no reason other than that it was the right thing to do. It’s important to remember that. And to talk about it.”

[Rating:3/5]

Paul Blart: Mall Cop

This movie is exactly what anyone would expect–nothing more, nothing less.  It’s an enjoyable, mindless romp full of pratfalls and slapstick humor that strives to be little more than lighthearted entertainment.  And as such, it succeeds admirably.

Few professions are as oft-maligned or disrespected by the public as that of “rent a cops” like the patrolmen we often see at malls, banks, or entrances to gated communities.  Never minding his public image, however, our hero Paul Blart (with a name that perfectly fits his character) played by the affable Kevin James, is determined to do his job and do it well.  He might not have the best home life, he might not be the coolest guy in the crowd, but he has a duty and he will see it done no matter the consequences.  Blart exists to serve the public as a mall security guard, and he takes it upon himself to perform this task, that might seem insignificant or silly to the rest of us, as best as he possibly can.  In the meantime he falls for a cute kiosk worker, finds ways to bond with his daughter, and ends up saving the day when a gang of robbers take over the mall in an attempt to get millions of dollars by hacking the…oh, it really doesn’t matter anyway.  What’s important is that Blart saves the day and we learn a thing or two about not judging people in the process.

Despite the movie’s predictability and total lack of originality, it is an enjoyable story that is perhaps even more noteworthy for what it is not:  a crass, sophomoric, attempt to push the boundaries of family comedy like so many of its contemporaries.  I’m so tired of seeing PG-13 rated schlock, that is just barely not edgy enough to deserve an R-rating, being passed off as family or teenage entertainment.  But Paul Plart is far more the exception to this trend than the rule, and the movie not only has blatant messages about the importance of family relationships, not judging others by their looks, never giving up under pressure, and even a hint of Ecclesiasted 9:10.  I was surprised at how clean this movie was, and in today’s day and age, that’s something noteworthy in and of itself.   Take note, Hollywood:  Paul Blart and his nearly $100 million domestic total at the box office might just be saying a few things about entertainment today.

But enough of my digression.  What really matters here is that this movie is silly but funny, and enjoyable from start to finish largely because of Kevin James’ over-the-top portrayal of the classic mall cop.  The movie never takes itself too seriously (since when do bank robbers use skateboards and BMX bikes?) and everyone can find something to relate to in Blart–whether he’s longing (not lusting) for Amy, his kiosk-inhabiting coworker, wishing he could save the day by doing something special, standing up to one of his high school tormentors who is now in charge of the SWAT team, or simply trying to put in an honest day’s work.  Despite a few flaws (every character here is a stereotype, and there really is nothing original onscreen in terms of plot) this is an enjoyable movie that, honestly, the whole family could enjoy together.

District 9

district9_poster-689x1024I love a movie that doesn’t just serve up passable or forgettable entertainment, but one that gets me giddy about movies–a sort-of recharging of the batteries after suffering through some big disappointments this summer: Transformers 2, Wolverine, Terminator Salvation, The Taking of Pelham 123, G.I. Joe.  The only saving grace for big budget action this summer seemed to be ‘Star Trek,’ a movie I really enjoyed that revived a lacking franchise, and also the latest ‘Harry Potter’ installment which might not exactly qualify as big budget ‘action’. Neill Blomkamp’s ‘District 9’ doesn’t just revive a franchise, or a genre, but it revives a seasonal drought.  I admit to falling under its spell early on with some intriguing high-concept trailers, but for the most part the movie remained under the radar, with most of its marketing stemming from that of the viral sort.  Nothing prepared me for how suspenseful and nail-biting this Peter Jackson produced feature would ultimately be.

I’ll try to remain vague with the plot. The story sets up the concept that an alien spacecraft came to earth twenty years ago on accident, having run out of fuel. The aliens inside were discovered starving, and thus, a camp was set up for them to live in known as District 9, located in Johannesburg, South Africa, mostly separating them from humans. The population of the alien species, known as prawns, grows over two decades to roughly 1.5 million, which brings us to present day where a government outfit attempts to relocate them to a type of concentration camp that will further distance them from humans.  More developments ensue, but I’ll stop there.

‘District 9’ is a flat-out masterpiece in every regard, surpassing even high expectations amongst the isolated hype surrounding it.  The movie is socially conscience with something to say, generating strong and interesting conflict in its approach to the age-old alien invasion film.  The movie also looks incredible, and this is done with a budget of only $30 million, a staggering decrease from Transformers’  and ‘Terminator Salvation’s’ $200 million.  The intensity of the film is uncompromising, and it has some incredible, violent action.  Neill Blomkamp is already quite a talent, and an interesting name to watch for.  His observation of the alien creatures and human reactions to them call upon great controversy that helps give the film an added weight that most films of this subject matter would easily dodge.  The special effects, I can’t stress enough, are just remarkable at their cost.  The aliens looks great, the action looks great.  All the right elements combine to make the best, most ambitious and engrossing movie of the summer.  I can’t recommend it enough.

[Rating:5/5]

Pathfinder

pathfind posterWith “Pathfinder,” horror Director Marcus Nispel, (“Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” “Friday the 13th, Killer Cut”) attempts to branch out into the historical epic/adventure genre.

Nispel Does deserve kudos for at least one thing with this movie: venturing into a part of history where Hollywood has feared to tread. Much like his characters, he is blazing uncharted territory.

We know that Vikings began to explore North America somewhere between A.D. 900 and 1200. We also know that there were already people there. What happened next must have been a fascinating clash of cultures, and could have made for a really interesting movie. Sadly, Pathfinder never transcends a level of shallowness reminiscent of 1940s propaganda.

The first thing we see in Pathfinder is a montage of Vikings mercilessly slaughtering and enslaving Native Americans. The Vikings don’t even appear human, their horned helmets (which Vikings did not wear) hiding their faces, and they shake the very ground on their horses (which Vikings did not ride).

The text on the screen reads: “600 years before Columbus, North America was invaded by a brutal people bent on settling there. Something stopped them. This is the legend.”

In the scenes that follow, a Native American woman happens upon a wrecked dragon boat, and finds that a Viking boy, 12 years of age, is the sole survivor. She takes him to her village, where the natives in this movie, remarkably ungrizzled by thousands of winters, spout the same humanistic rhetoric as contemporary Hollywood liberals. The boy, now named “Ghost,” is allowed not only to live with the tribe, but also to retain possession of a number of artifacts of the civilization that is slaughtering his hosts, most notably a Viking sword.

Fast forward 10 years. Ghost (Karl Urban) is now a man; a loyal brave of his tribe, although someone (it’s anyone’s guess who) has apparently taught him swordplay and other Viking tactics. Things seem peaceful until another army of Vikings makes landfall nearby and begins raiding villages and killing natives. This time, however, they face a strangely pale-skinned native, who is familiar with their weapons and tactics, and once they’ve killed his adoptive parents, he wages a one-man war against them. One has to wonder how so many men and horses could fit into a few dragon boats, but at least there’s plenty of fodder for Nispel’s next gore fest. Really, the movie is less deserving of ink than the real story.

Karl Urban takes up the sword in "Pathfinder."

Karl Urban takes up the sword in "Pathfinder."

Firstly, while no one could ever call the Vikings humanitarians, there was more to them than sacking and pillaging. The ones who came to the Americas were aspiring not to raiding, or “viking,” but to a quiet life of settled farming. (see  www.mnh.si.edu/vikings) What’s more, the Viking raids of European towns were motivated by a desire for precious metals and stones. Needless to say, native American villages wouldn’t have had these, although there still would have been conflicts over land and resources. It is also worth noting that European scholars recorded that Vikings were actually quite hygienic for their time. (Lost Civilizations: Vikings, Thomas H. Flaherty, 1993) The story of their colonization of Greenland is one of remarkable courage. A Viking skeleton has been found there of a man who dislocated his arm during farm work. With no medical care available, he worked with that arm for several more years until he actually wore a new socket in the scapula! (Lost Civ, Faherty, ’93)

As for what “stopped them,” the harder question would be what didn’t. The ships Vikings had were glorified canoes, and the journey – some 3,000 miles across the violent north Altlantic – would have been exceedingly difficult for seasoned sailors, let alone women, children and livestock.

The land that far north was only slightly more hospitable. (www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook) The Vikings might have made it had they learned from the Inuit, who subsisted entirely on seals and fish. The farming lifestyle that Vikings knew would have been extremely difficult in a part of the world reputed to have “10 months of winter and two months of bad sledding.” A combination of rough seas, brutal winters and starvation are much more likely to have “stopped” the invaders than a guy with a slingshot (not to spoil the end or anything).

It also needs to be said that native Americans were far from gentle when it came to dealing with captured enemies. The Iriquoi, whom the Vikings would have encountered, made a habit of torturing prisoners. The accounts of some of their activities are enough to chill the blood. (The Jesuite Relations, Reuben Gold Thwaites, 1791) This wasn’t because they were any less civilized than anyone else, but because they were hardened by a daily fight for survival. Hollywood humanism didn’t exist yet, and a child of an enemy tribe, native or European, probably would have been ignored, if he were lucky.

It’s not that I expect movies to be 100% realistic. It’s just that this could have been a great film. The Vikings and the various native tribes of the northeast were fascinating peoples. Doubtless there was bravery, passion, and at times great evil on both sides. “Pathfinder” cheapens both sides almost beyond recognition. And all for the sake of turning our brains off for battle-action that’s too gruesome to enjoy anyway.

[Rating:1/5]

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

gijoe‘GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra’ is one of those awful films that quite frankly is a waste of time to review. Beware, it’s bad, yes. But the problem is that we all know this already before seeing it, so why bother reviewing it? In fact, why did I bother to see it?  Well it had a $54 million opening weekend and is probably on coarse to grossing $140 million American dollars or more.  So there is apparently an audience for this thing, a movie which makes the ‘Transformers’ sequel appear to have a shot at snagging a Best Picture nomination at the Oscars next year.

Having seen the movie yesterday, I’m having trouble regurgitating the plot already.  As I recall, the movie revolves around two American soldiers (Channing Tatum, Marlon Wayans) in a military unit protecting a government case of some sort that contains nanomite weaponry. Nanomites are programmed bugs controlled by computer that consume metal by way of an encompassing green mist. The military unit protecting it is thwarted by a band of assassins and another secret military group of super-soldiers known as ‘Joes.’ Tatum and Wayans are the last two left from the mission and somehow find themselves thrust into the Joes training program where they wish to retrieve their weapons and exact revenge.

As if the plot wasn’t enough to scare you off, the cast and the dialogue totally mar this movie. It is ugly and embarrassing. Watch any exchange between any of the cast. If you’re not howling, I applaud you. The sad thing is the movie has Dennis Quaid, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and even up-and-comer Channing Tatum–so it shouldn’t be quite as atrocious as it is. And dare I say, Quaid is the worst of the bunch.  I have a hard time believing he had any preparation or even read a page of the script before the first day of filming.

gijoe2

The film also has some cringe-worthy flashbacks and subplots. The opening of the film is so unbelievably mind-boggling as to why the resources and sets were created for that particular scene which really has no impact in addressing the proceedings of the individual character it is setting up. What a waste of screen time. But it doesn’t end there. Flashbacks of two ‘sibling’ opposing assassins come to life as well, setting up a laughable showdown between the two in the film’s climax.  But there’s still more. It got to the point where every time the subtitle ’20 Years Earlier’ popped up onscreen, I was rolling my eyes and laughing out loud. I won’t even dare ruin the hilarity of the relationship of Channing Tatum’s character, Duke and his ex-fiancee assassin character. Wow.

This movie apparently cost $175 million. Where it went? To a lot video game-esque CGI that at times looks awful, others decent. Nonetheless, this movie is wall-to-wall action throughout. But it’s dopey action. Cheesy action. Role your eyes and howl at the screen action.  I can admit that the Paris sequence involving a chase of Marlon Wayans and Channing Tatum in what looks like real-life Halo gear was kind of fun– a loud, crunching, explosive scene. To be fair, there’s a lot of explosions, and loud crunching sound throughout the movie, but this was the only particularly involving scene for me. Then the dialogue ruins it, but oh well.

This is a Stephen Sommers film, and while I can appreciate ‘The Mummy’ and ‘The Mummy Returns,’ at heart he’s a hack filmmaker making adventure films for kids. And that’s exactly what this is–a hack script with a studio backing millions of dollars for continually shoddy special effects. I will say if I were six years old, this film would’ve been a real treat. But I couldn’t cave in on the pure stupidity of this production like I could with ‘Transformers,’ another Hasbro inspired blockbuster.  Yes, this movie was so awful that at the end of the day, I have to wonder which surprised me more:  The fact that Sommers found a way for ‘Mummy’ stars Brendan Fraser, Arnold Vosoloo, and Derrick O’Connor to all make their way into this movie?  Or that his villain laughably rips off Darth Vader in the end?

[Rating:1.5/5]

Yes Man

It’s been quite an interesting ride for Jim Carrey.  The man who started his career with goofy personas and characters all built on his near-inhuman physical elasticity and penchant for over-the-top humor found great fame and fortune with such endearing characters as Rubberface, Ace Ventura, Lloyd Christmas, and even The Riddler (yes, Batman Forever stunk, but Carrey played his character to the hilt.  I blame the film’s faults solely on Joel Schumacher, one of the worst directors this side of Uwe Boll) also tried his hand at serious films such as Man on the Moon and The Truman Show.  And for the most part, he did well, and Truman remains one of the more touching and poignant films of his long and staid career.  After flirting with drama, another stint with the Farrely brothers, a turn as The Grinch, and one of the most challenging roles any actor could ask for–that of Joel Barish in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind–Carrey has spent the past few years returning to his proverbial roots in outlandish physical comedy.  His recent roles have been much more along the lines of those that originally made him a household name, and to some extent he has to be trying to prove to the world that he still has it.

But does he?

Enter Yes Man, the film from directory Peyton Reed, about a man named Carl Allen who is so down on himself and life in general that he turns down every chance for surprise, fun, or even enjoyment.  But soon Carl, played by Jim Carrey, decided to say “yes” instead of “no” to virtually any opportunity that comes his way.  Whether it’s a homeless man asking for money, a friend asking him to foot the bill for the bar tab, a stranger asking if he wants a ride on her motorbike, or the chance to take a spontaneous trip to exotic Lincoln, Nebraska, Carl soon realizes that saying “yes” often leads to more excitement and, ultimately, a life well lived.

And that’s about it.  Sure there’s a few conflicts with friends, an oddball coworker, a love interest, and a lesson about moderation, but really this film isn’t much more than a story about a guy who learns to have fun by saying yes (though, ultimately, in moderation).  The movie’s true raison d’etre is simply to provide a vehicle for Jim Carrey to be Jim Carrey.  That means plenty of physical gags, odd voices and accents, sexual jokes, and more than a few PG-13 rated squirm-worthy moments that felt like they should have belonged back in the Farrely trash bin where they belong.  While the overall concept seems nifty enough, it’s almost as if the filmmakers, in adapting Danny Wallace’s original book, were searching for nothing more than a way to get Jim Carrey back into an outrageous funny role.  And then crafted a screenplay around it.

[Read more…]