Steve Jobs

Released:  October 9^th, 2015

Rated:  R

Distributor:  Universal Pictures

Starring:  Michael Fassbender, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen, Jeff Daniels, Michael Stuhlbarg, Katherine Waterston

Directed by:  Danny Boyle

Written by:  Aaron Sorkin

Personal Bias Alert:  not a Sorkin or Apple fan

7 of 10

            Anyone who’s started to get some age on their bones knows the rough story of Apple and has witnessed its meteoric rise over the last seventeen years.  Those with a wary eye would also have noted the mythologizing of the company and its co-founder, Steve Jobs, which has led to both ardent worshiping and simmering animosity.  By now, it would be difficult to wipe from history the notion that Apple led us into the technological revolution, but any such simplistic description of the tectonic cultural shift we’ve experienced would be untrue.  This is what makes the affronted reaction to Steve Jobs so surprising.  Yes, the film isn’t particularly nice to its deceased subject, but its jabs at the man were reported on throughout his life.  This reaction is perhaps indicative of the cultural gullibility that the film hints at, but if writer Aaron Sorkin understood this phenomena, then it begs the question of why he thought the film could be successful at all.

            Then again, Sorkin isn’t known for undervaluing his own abilities, and it doesn’t surprise me to read of the ‘great truths’ he believes he hit upon in this film.  By structuring the film around three different product launches, it’s clear that Sorkin wasn’t going for a traditional biopic.  The film relies instead on thematic work to give it its arc, and the carefully selected characters that reappear throughout are the biggest hints at what Sorkin was reaching for.  Obviously, Jobs himself is in nearly every frame, with Michael Fassbender portraying him as a borderline megalomaniac.  Representing the largest thematic arc, namely the influence of family (or familial figures) on personality is his daughter Lisa (Perla Haney-Jardine, Ripley Sobo, and Makenzie Moss) and father-figure John Sculley (Jeff Daniels).  Through these characters, Jobs’ early life is used to explain his later downfalls, and his character arc and the film’s overall storyline centers on this exploration.  The trouble is that Sorkin doesn’t handle the storyline with Lisa well, and the constant presence of a young girl seems both manipulative and troubling.  What he’s exploring here is a rather simple line to draw, and the overblown way in which Sorkin chooses to examine it is, and I hate to use this word, pretentious.

            The other people surrounding Jobs is a group of long-time coworkers:  confidante Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet), co-founder Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen), and punching bag Andy Hertzfeld (Michael Stuhlbarg).  These are people who have known Jobs intimately throughout his career, and they are mouthpieces for the ramifications of forced mythology.  Again, this theme is hit rather hard, and while Sorkin’s observations on these and other smaller themes are true, they aren’t nearly as insightful as he would have us believe.

            And yet, for all its narrative downfalls, Sorkin still brings his snappy brand of dialogue to the table, which makes Steve Jobs bound along to a strong rhythm.  His pairing with director Danny Boyle proves to be a wonderful choice, as most of the film takes place in dressing rooms and backstage hallways.  Boyle has already made an hour of a man trapped by a rock visually appealing, so I’m sure this was no great stretch.  He doesn’t do anything too flashy, mostly some dynamic lighting and excellent music cues, which hints at what he’s really a master of:  knowing how to work with what he has.  What he had with Steve Jobs is some electric conversations, and he plays up each scene’s ebbs and flows into something that, in the moment, feels satisfying.  It’s just too bad that he and Sorkin weren’t able to find something larger to tie it all together.

Other Notes:

Ø  All of the cast is very good, including Michael Stuhlbarg, who I’m afraid is getting overlooked in favor of the more recognizable cast members.

Ø  This film seems to be getting hit with the ‘isn’t true to real life’ criticism.  I don’t think that was ever the intent here, so the criticism doesn’t seem valid to me.

Ø  In case my feelings on Apple seem relevant to you, here they are.  I generally dislike the company (I hate its incompatibility and prices), but it’s not enough to stop me from owning an IPhone and an IPod.  I’m still a firm PC user, though.

50/50

Released:  September 30^th, 2011

Rated:  R

Studio:  Summit Entertainment

Starring:  Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen, Anna Kendrick, Bryce Dallas Howard, Anjelica Huston

Directed by:  Jonathan Levine

Written by:  Will Reiser

Personal Bias Alert:  dislikes manchild jokes, likes Joseph Gordon-Levitt

4.5 of 10

            What’s funny about cancer?  “First of all, it starts with that hard C sound, that K.  That is a comedy principle,” said Sarah Silverman in her Stand Up to Cancer video.  She goes on to tell a few more jokes while weaving in a serious message, mirroring in three minutes what it takes 50/50 100 minutes to do.  Now, I know that Silverman’s video and 50/50 are entirely different mediums of work, which partially explains the time difference, but it also highlights how much more a film is expected to do.  50/50 tries to do more, but too much of it feels false to get across any larger meaning.

            Much ado was made during the film’s release about the story being based on writer Will Reiser’s own cancer incident (he recovered before writing the script).  The story loosely follows Reiser and friend/co-star Seth Rogen’s experience, focusing on how the unexpected cancer diagnosis of 20-something Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) effects his friends, family, and himself.  Perhaps this gave me some false expectations.  I was hoping for a funny, insightful film that felt close to reality, and what I got was a formulaic, manchild comedy with an affecting ending.  Needless to say, I was disappointed.

            My biggest problem with the film, which would have bothered me even without my incorrect expectations, was just how unrealistic the whole thing was.  And I don’t mean the cancer scare.  I know that 20-somethings get cancer.  It’s the insufferable tropes surrounding Adam’s predicament that annoyed the hell out of me.  Between the inattentive girlfriend, the doctor with horrible bedside manners, the overbearing mother, the manchild best friend, and the terrible therapist, I couldn’t find any genuine characters for Adam to interact with.  Every scene felt unnatural, and, well, written.  There are few things that annoy me more in a movie than being able to see the strings, and this film leaves them pretty bare.

            Moreover, this film just felt nasty to me.  It judges all its characters, hard, for the vast majority of its runtime.  The fact that they’re all so one-note, and that their notes are so negative, left me little room to care about them at all.  I mean, why should I care about a mother who overreacts to everything whenever she comes onscreen?  She’s not my mother, and Adam is perfectly fine with ignoring her, so I am too.  At least the best friend played by Rogan makes some effort, but he fails so miserably that I just wanted him to leave Adam alone.  Honestly, I didn’t even buy that those two would be friends, cancer or not.

            Then you have the technical aspects of the film, which too often stick out and add to the unreality of the whole thing.  I made two separate notes about how much I hated the music in this film, once after the cancer reveal and once in the scene where Adam’s high.  Although, the music wasn’t the only thing wrong with the overdone ‘Adam’s high’ scene.  Between the hackneyed cinematography, the ridiculous slow-motion chuckles, and that music, I thought I had stepped into a happy version of Reefer Madness.

            The only spark in the first 75 minutes of this film are the scenes between Adam and Katherine, the young therapist played by Anna Kendrick.  Gordon-Levitt and Kendrick are the only ones with enough screen time and talent to overcome their thin characters, and there’s moments when their interactions feel genuine.  Add in that these two are the only characters allowed to show a shred of decency before the ending, and it’s no wonder I didn’t care about the rest of the movie.

            And let’s talk about that ending.  There’s such a sharp tone change in the last 25 minutes that it felt like a different movie.  The raunchy comedy is abandoned in favor of the big, emotional ending, which is a bit easy and familiar given the setup, but Gordon-Levitt sells it so well that it’s hard not to be moved.  I actually enjoyed this part of the film, probably because the characters around Adam were suddenly allowed to act like actual human beings.  They were still flawed, but their efforts inexplicably start to amount to something.  It’s not at all consistent with the rest of the film, but I was so happy that it was finally working that I threw up my hands and went with it.  I just wish the rest of the film had actually set this ending up.

Other Notes:

Ø  What world does this film exist in?  No doctor would be that oblivious while revealing a cancer diagnosis, and no one would do what Rogan’s character does with that picture.

Ø  The crude humor felt out of place.

Ø  I liked Kendrick and Gordon-Levitt’s relationship, but I’m not sure about the ethics of it.  I mean, he was her patient.

Ø  Sarah Silverman’s Stand Up to Cancer video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGtaV85AzWE

Neighbors (2014)

Released:  May 9^th, 2014

Rated:  R

Studio:  Universal

Starring:  Seth Rogen, Zac Efron, Rose Byrne, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Dave Franco

Directed by:  Nicholas Stoller             

Written by:  Andrew J. Cohen, Brendan O’Brien

Personal Bias Alert:  not a fan of crass humor, not a Seth Rogan fan (do those two things go hand in hand?)

6.5 of 10

            When I saw the trailer for “Neighbors,” I never thought the film would actually be about something.  I went in ready for a silly, gross-out gag fest with a loosely constructed story to give the whole thing some semblance of direction.  Yet once the movie got going, I found that I was as entertained by the plot as I was by the gags.

            “Neighbors” stars Seth Rogan and Rose Byrne as Mac and Kelly Radner, a young couple with a baby who are settling into adult life.  They’ve bought a house and are anxiously awaiting to find out who will move in next door.  When a frat shows up, with Zac Efron’s Teddy as president, they are justifiably concerned.  As the noise level increases next door, the couple become desperate to defend their turf and end up engaging in all-out war with the young frat members.

            This is a film made predominantly by 30-somethings, and it shows in the film’s central theme.  I know, talking about themes in a movie like “Neighbors” seems ridiculous, but I swear it’s a prominent and interesting aspect of the film.  Each of the main characters are at a transitional point in their lives:  Mac and Kelly have started a family and can no longer consider themselves young adults, and Teddy and Dave Franco’s Pete are in their senior year of college, that weird time when you know that real life is about to hit you in the face.  Each are struggling with the inevitable changes, and the central conflict of family vs. frat acts as a perfect metaphor for their internal struggles.

            It’s an emotionally honest film, and that results in well-formed characters.  They all react to the changes in their own ways, and even wife Kelly gets her own agencies (I love that they didn’t sideline her as a nagging wife).  Efron, Rogan, and Byrne all play well off each other and generate some solid laughs.  Some of the other actors (Franco, Christopher Mintz-Plasse) weren’t on the same level, but it’s never too detrimental.

            Alright, I’ve gone on enough about this plot and character stuff, now to the humor.  I found the movie to be funny despite focusing on my least favorite styles of humor.  I just don’t find people getting thrown into a ceiling that funny, but there’s a decent enough mix of physical, gross-out, and situational humor that everyone should find jokes they can laugh at.  Some of the gross-out jokes were drawn out, which I didn’t enjoy, but that’s to be expected from this Apatow-based group.  I can’t say I laughed out loud much, but I was amused the whole way through.

            I may be in the minority, but I found the plot and the situational humor of this movie to be more entertaining than the improv bits and crass jokes that these guys are known for.  I have to give it credit for mixing it up, though.  I think this is a film that can appeal to a wide audience, and normally word of mouth would help a film like this stick around in theaters a long time.  Unfortunately, the coming weeks are chock-full of massive releases, with “Godzilla,” “X-Men:  Days of Future Past,” and “Maleficent” all coming out in the next three weeks.  I’m hoping this little comedy delight won’t get lost in the shuffle.

            Other Notes:

Ø  There’s a lot of shaky cam in this movie, and sometimes it was distracting.

Ø  I couldn’t find much information on screenwriters Andrew J. Cohen and Brendan O’Brien, but HitFix has a good article on them.  Read it here:  http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/the-screenwriters-of-seth-rogens-neighbors-say-the-star-is-not-what-he-seems/2

Ø  The set design on this film was really strong.  Those two houses felt lived-in and age appropriate.

Ø  I apparently don’t understand accents, because I thought Rose Byrne’s Australian accent was a bit shaky.  Turns out she’s Australian, and that’s her natural accent.