The Interview (2014)

Starring: Seth Rogen, James Franco, Randall Park

Directors: Evan Goldberg, Seth Rogen

IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2788710/

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Interview_(2014_film)

"If liking Katy Perry and margaritas is gay, then I don't want to be straight."

-James Franco, speaking the most profound line in the movie

Yeah, you knew this was coming... again...

Yes, "The Interview," after a causing an international incident over its depiction of the attempted assassination of North Korea Leader Kim Jong-Un, ending up being released, and was... promptly forgotten by all those originally upset by it, a shining example of how incredibly pathetic human attention span can be. But... I remembered it, strangely enough. And so I decided it would be best to conclude this useless saga in pop-culture history by reviewing it. So...here we go:

The plot starts off with a TV personality and his producer who mostly interview celebrities. However, in an attempt to be taken seriously, they get a chance to interview the Dear Leader (Randall Park). Before heading over to North Korea, they are recruited by the CIA to assassinate him. However, when they arrive, things get complicated...or stupid...mostly stupid...

When I discussed this movie in my previous post, I said, based on the trailer, that this movie looked really stupid. But trailers can be wrong, right? Yes, but...not this time!

First things first: James Franco is the most annoying human being on the planet and he needs to be locked away forever! I know, I know, I am not exactly trending new ground by saying that. But...seriously! Almost every time his character speaks, it is an attempt to cram in as much bathroom/bedroom humor (and "Lord of the Rings" references, for some reason) as possible. And they are not quick one liners either: he just starts talking and never stops. It serves no value to the plot or the English language.

As for Seth Rogen...um...was he even in this movie? He mostly plays it straight and he (unwittingly) takes part in moving forward with the plan toward the end. And granted, he did co-direct the film, so maybe his attention was elsewhere. Still, he mostly seems like he is just reacting to events as opposed to doing anything productive. Oh, wait I forgot, the sticking the thing up his butt gag. Never mind, he was very important to the movie.

As for the movie as a whole, the best way I can describe it is that it is "Pineapple Express" if it took place in North Korea. It is two guys who get caught up in something they have no business in doing. You can say this is symbolic of the whole hacking incident, but that is to assume the movie is somehow deep (it isn't).

Now, the film is somewhat self-aware: it touches on the consequences of having a televised meeting with, and possibly killing, the leader of a rogue state.

And then James Franco tells a dick joke.

When you get down to it, the film as a whole is just a string of bathroom and bedroom humor jokes wrapped together to create a basic plot. A lot of this (as a bit of an inside-joke) centers around Franco's homoerotic tendencies, both toward Rogen and Jung-Un, whom he becomes buddies with (Park actually does play the part well, even if he looks more esteemed than the real Jung-Un and does not do much to hide his American accent). That might be the real reason Jung-Un was upset with the film; it was because it associated him with James Franco! In fairness, the friendship is rather odd: can you image something as weird as that happening in real life...

Oh, right...

But hey, at least I now know what "honey dipping" is, or at least the PG-rated meaning of the word (don't ask).

Now, I will admit, there were some parts that made me laugh. The funniest was probably at the very beginning when they interview Eminem (playing himself) It has little to do with the rest of the movie, but it is just fun watching him saying this ridiculous stuff in a deadpan manner. Forget "8 Mile," he should go into comedy if he decides to give up rap (I am going to regret this sentence years from now, aren't I...?). The other funny parts are a bit forced, but you take what you can get.

So, has my opinion changed about the film now that I have actually seen it? Uhhh...no. It is what I expected: a dumb movie about dumb people doing dumb things. And again, if everyone had just left it alone, this whole fuss would have never happened. And I would not have had to write not one, but two, posts about a movie when I should have written zero!

So, do I recommend it? If you want to stick it to North Korea, you probably already have. If you are looking for great political satire, you would be better served watching "Team America" instead. Other than that, it really depends on how much you enjoy this sort of humor. I am not above saying I like it in small doses or if it is done in a cleaver way, but this movie does neither. If what I described it not up your alley, then I would skip it. Either way, it is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less...

I felt the need to include this image for whatever reason.

Well, glad that is over with. Weird how worked up everyone got over this. It is just a movie. It is not like there is any movie in history that has ever caused real long-term damage or...

Oh, Jesus...

The images and links in this post do not belong to me and are being used for entertainment purposes only. Please do not sue me. Especially you, Franco.

Much Ado About Nothing: The Pointless Fuss Over "The Interview"

Yeah, you knew this was coming...

For those of you who have been living under a rock recently, "The Interview" is a movie starring Seth Rogen and James Franco as two television personalities who get the chance of a lifetime: a one-on-one interview with North Korean leader Kim Jung-un. But when the CIA recruits them to kill the dictator, things get crazy...

Or at least that is the impression we get. We do not really know for sure because not long before the film was set to be release, suspected North Korean hackers launched a cyberattack on its producer, Sony Pictures, releasing a flood of private information in retaliation for making the movie. After theaters refused to show it, Sony decided to pull the plug on the picture altogether.

Before we get into this discussion, let's take a look at the trailer:

Looks pretty stupid, doesn't it? Apparently the fate of North Korea depends on whether Rogen can stick something up his butt or not. I'll be honest, if it were not for this whole incident, I probably would not have even seen this film, at least not in theaters. Maybe there are better parts, I don't know. Just did not quite cut it for me...

Now, there has been a lot of discussion about its merits. Should we be making a movie about the assassination of a real leader? Should the film about a guy residing over a brutal regime be taken more seriously? Is it brave or is it stupid, if not reckless? These are all legitimate arguments that people have had, and which I admit to being a participant in. But I have come to a realization: in a way, all these discussions are irrelevant. We are all (again, I'm including myself on this one) basing this on assumptions made about a movie that only a handful of people have actually gotten a chance to see (aside from various clips, including the leaked footage of the Dear Leader's death scene). Maybe we can have that discussion when it is released (as I predict it will, eventually). But for now, we are left in the dark.

So why aren't we getting to see it? We can blame Sony or the movie theaters (there is some controversy at the moment over who is really responsible for the cancellation) all we want and with some justification. But at the end of the day, we know who the real culprit is: a frumpy man-child who rules his country with an iron-fist, yet throws a hissy fit due to the fact that the two stoners from "Pineapple Express" are big meanies!

And to think, he could have been spending his valuable time eating...whatever the hell this is...

But for argument's sake, let's say the tables were reversed: say North Korea made a movie about two guys who try to assassinate President Obama. How would we react? Well, we would be outraged by it. But you know what would happen next? We would probably forget about it within a week. It is not because we do not take threats against our leaders seriously; it is because we know that North Korea is a backwards place and the film would just be a typical piece of propaganda to achieve their motives. And if we were to try to stop it from being shown, at best it would make us look petty and hypocritical for stifling "free speech." By that same standard, while Kim Jung-un and his close advisers may be offended, they also (might) well know that "The Interview" is (again, as far as can tell) a stupid movie about stupid guys acting stupidly.

So why all the fuss? While it is practically impossible to tell at this point, there is a chance that this had nothing to do with the movie at all. This might be part of a political power-play between the U.S. and North Korea, with the movie being used as an excuse to rock the boat. But the intent was clear. After all, "[t]he cinema occupies an important place in the overall development of art and literature. As such it is a powerful ideological weapon for the revolution and construction." This is a quote from a 1987 essay written by Kim Jung-il, a notorious cinephile. So if Kim Jng-un is anything like his late father (who was no stranger to being mocked onscreen), he knows how movies effect people, whether making them laugh, cry, or as we have see, angry.

If this whole incident has shown us anything, it reveals what happens when you take things too far. If "The Interview" was allowed to be shown as it was intended to, it is likely that people would have either seen it and gotten a laugh out of it, seen it and scoffed at it, or simply dismissed it altogether and gone to see "Unbroken" instead. Now when people do see it (as I said, eventually), regardless of the actual message and quality of the film, it will now be seen as a sacred symbol of the First Amendment that will be used to "stick it" to the Dear Leader as opposed to what it might have been: the movie where Seth Rogen sticks something up his butt (assuming it is the only one...). In any case, it appears that Kim Jung-un really did bite off more than he could chew [insert another fat joke here].

Oh, and guess who will go laughing all the way to the bank at the end of this?:

"Hahaha," indeed.

I do not own the rights to any of these links, videos or pictures. They are being used for entertainment purposes only, so please don't sue me...or hack me.

REVIEW: 50/50 (2011)

Cancer is not a light subject and not one that many mainstream movies get made about. When they do, it’s usually within the frame of a very heavy drama, with little room for anything else, and that is where 50/50 comes in to demolish those expectations. This is a very wholesome film that answers the question I was wondering ever since I saw the trailer: “How can you inject comedy into a movie about a guy getting cancer?” Well, 50/50 did that with a splendid turn out.

Director: Jonathan Levine

Starring: Joseph-Gordon Levitt, Seth Rogen, Anna Kendrick

Website: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1306980/

Joseph Gordon Levitt is a great young actor and this film shows why – he’s able to fit himself into a role and cloak himself in it to where you don’t really think of him as an actor. In his best movies like Mysterious Skin, he fully becomes the character. He doesn’t try too hard to showboat or win any Oscars, he just puts out consistently excellent performances, no bells and whistles, no gimmicks. He’s awesome. Seth Rogen, famous for God knows how many trashy comedy movies over the last few years, pretty much does what you would expect of him here – silly, boisterous and loud – but the character is well written and nuanced to where he’s actually fairly compelling by the end. Anna Kendrick, of Up in the Air fame, puts on a great performance too as Levitt’s therapist. She is soft and feminine and kind of awkward, but she has a good spirit and a spunky sort of beat to her personality.

The movie kicks into gear relatively quickly with Levitt getting the big news that he has cancer. The film likes to straddle a line between comedy and drama, with a very serious scene here and there and others more speckled with jokes and wry witticisms. Levitt’s comedic timing comes from his stoic, deadpan delivery – what else would you expect from a guy who has cancer? He’s matched pretty brilliantly by Rogen’s brazenness.

Overall, 50/50 is a fairly simple and straightforward tale. It’s the story of a young man who gets cancer and has to face the painful road ahead to recovery. The strongest moments in the film are hard to pick out because it’s a whole movie of strong moments. The strength of the whole is its characters, and the way they interact with one another. Levitt’s interactions with Rogen are a big highlight of the movie, as they’re funny and also insightful into both characters’ finer points. Levitt talks to his mother and girlfriend a fair few times in the film – one of those relationships tanks and the other one ends up flourishing and stronger than ever, and the juxtaposition shows how versatile the actors and directors are. He talks to his therapist (Kendrick) quite often too. I have to admit Kendrick’s storyline does feel a little rushed in comparison to some of the others, but it’s a minor complaint at best.

We learn about all the characters through conversation and as the film unfolds, we see a broad, spirited picture of human tragedy. The human condition is never limited strictly to the person directly inflicted by some terrible ailment; it also affects those around him or her too, and part of what this movie tells us is that it’s not necessarily morally reprehensible to show that you’re just as grief-stricken as the person who is sick to begin with. People always say that nothing anyone is feeling about a loved one’s sickness or ailment can compare with what the person is feeling him- or herself, and that is true to some extent, but everyone is affected a little bit and has to deal with it just the same. There is no hierarchy of grieving and distress. Some people deal with the pain and suffering of their loved ones in good ways, and others do not – such is the way of life and human error.

The reasons why 50/50 is a great film are plentiful – the acting, the directing, the pacing – but overall the film is more than the sum of its parts. It is a tale of laughing and crying, of the ways we interact with those around us – for we are never just individual souls cut off from the world, we are all interconnected. 50/50 is the story of those connections and how they come together in the face of possible death. This is an honest movie about people doing what they can.

All images copyright of their original owners. I do not own any of them.