Drinking Buddies

I have a theory about movies and the critics who review them. Sometimes I think critics get together as a group, grab some lunch and collectively agree whether or not to give a positive or negative review to a specific film. That's the biggest thing I took away from 2013's Drinking Buddies, currently rocking an 82% from critics (that's good) at Rotten Tomatoes but only a 56% from audiences (strictly mediocre) and 6.2 at IMDB (a "Meh" if there ever was). Which one is it? Critical darling or audience dud?

Working at Revolution Brewery in Chicago, Kate (Olivia Wilde) and Luke (Jake Johnson) are the best of friends. They hang out together, go drinking after work, bust each other almost non-stop about...well, everything and more importantly trust the other one about just about everything. Their friendly(ish) flirting goes on almost non-stop as well, but there's a problem. Both are in relationships, Kate dating Chris (Ron Livingston), who signs promising artists for a record label while Luke is quasi-engaged to Jill (Anna Kendrick) as the couple figures things out for the future. Could anything come of their friendship like the perfectly compatible Kate and Luke deciding they should date and be together? Or will their significant others in their relationships end up being 'the one'?

I don't know if I've ever written a more cliched plot description than that. I remember watching the trailer for this gem at some point late last summer, the thought that maybe it would be good, and then...it just wasn't. If you're looking to save 90 minutes of your life, just watch the trailer. It hits seemingly all the necessary plot points and then ends. Wanna know the catch? That's the entire movie. It doesn't get any better than that. The entire movie is based on the 1990s TV sitcom cliche that Pretty Girl A is meant to be with Quirky but Perfect Guy A. The problem? Pretty Girl A is with Quirky but Not Perfect Guy B. Quirky but Perfect Guy A....yeah, he's all over the place. I didn't like this movie, and I was real close to completely bailing late in the 90-minute flick. For you loyal readers, I stuck with it though.

If I'm going to criticize, I've got to have it all figured out, right? I watched this movie from director and writer Joe Swanberg and couldn't quite put my finger on it. Just about each and every scene had this weird tone to it, an uncomfortable back and forth, silences that are too long for their own good. These are conversations and dialogue that just seem, well, forced. Why is that exactly? The entire movie was improvised. Yes, Swanberg provided a rough outline for his cast to work off of, but nothing definite in terms of actual lines. Instead, the cast just went with it, making up dialogue as they want. You know what? It shows. Beyond any reality of the awkwardness of male/female relationships, there are too many scenes that are just uncomfortable to watch. They're either too short or gone on for too long. There is little to no rhythm from scene to scene, slowing down an already glacial-like pacing.

There is talent here though so there has to be something worth recommending, right? Nope, Swanberg's outlined script making it really hard to be sympathetic with any of the four main characters. We know basically from the start that Kate and Chris aren't going to make it, and that Luke and Jill similarly have some pretty serious issues to deal with if their relationship is going to last. Maybe it is the entire lack of a script -- just that lovely outline -- or just the acting in general, but I didn't like any of the four main characters. Wilde's Kate seems too dumb and goofy for her own good, Johnson's Luke is too nice and equally clueless, Livingston's Chris is just odd, always off a beat or two, and Kendrick's Jill is very twitchy and awkward and uncomfortable. The issues they're dealing with, their emotions and relationship struggles are all pretty real, not some contrived movie relationship issue, but the characters range from dumb to annoying to unpleasant and the story never brings any of it to life.

'Buddies' does take some interesting twists about the halfway point, but by then I was almost completely checked out. It had already dug its grave way too deep by that point. It ends on a disappointing note, not resolving much and leaving too many plates spinning all at one time. And then for a couple other things worth mentioning. Jason Sudeikis is the only other supporting part worth mentioning, Kate's absent-minded boss who tries to avoid work at all costs. Also, the film is set in Chicago, featuring references from everything to Revolution Brewery to random mentions of streets, schools and suburbs in the area. All well and good, right? Yeah, especially for Chicago viewers. It's all a cop-out I tells ya!!!! We never see Chicago in the least. What a city tease, Drinking Buddies, for shame.

A movie about late 20-somethings dealing with the hell that can be life (and set in Chicago) sounded moderately appealing even if the trailer was less than convincing. Nothing comes of it, the lack of a script being the biggest impediment to anything good as a finished product. It's called Drinking Buddies, and that's what we see, four people drinking a lot of beer (and some wine), brooding over their relationships, flirting with their friends, and in general, being pretty annoying. Steer clear, just go to a local bar and people watch. It'll be more entertaining.

Drinking Buddies (2013): */****

Parkland

How quick time flies. Fifty years ago today, November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas as he drove in a motorcade through the downtown area, sniper Lee Harvey Oswald doing the shooting. It was and still is a tragic moment in American history, one explored in pop culture with books like Stephen King's 11/22/63 and films like JFK and Executive Action. Add another flick to the list, 2013's Parkland.

To describe the plot here would more than defeat the purpose. With a little build-up to the actual assassination on that November morning, we're shown the actual shooting Dealey Plaza, mostly from the people that see it. We never see President Kennedy get shot, never see Lee Harvey Oswald shoot him. This isn't a movie about Kennedy, instead it is how the President's death sends ripples throughout Dallas, including the hospital, law enforcement, Kennedy's staff, the witnesses, the FBI, how they all responded to it and handled the assassination. The story follows the immediate aftermath and the subsequent days, mostly from the perspective of Parkland Hospital, where Kennedy died less than an hour after being shot. Plot? Not really, it's more a lot of characters in an episodic story that packs a whole lot of stuff into its 94-minute running time.

From director/writer Peter Landesman, 'Parkland' had a $10 million budget and was given little to no theatrical release, making about $600,000 in theaters. Why did it struggle so mightily? I'm not really sure. I liked it a lot. With a short running time, it is slightly schizophrenic in terms of storytelling. It is basically on the go non-stop. We meet countless individuals -- from known individuals like Oswald, Jackie Kennedy and LBJ -- to lesser known but very real people, the hospital staff, the FBI, the witnesses, all affected by the assassination that rocked the nation. I liked that Landesman's film gives an almost fly on the wall look at the history that we've all heard about, all knew it happened, but to actually see it, it's interesting, startling and unsettling, like we're a witness to history.

Maybe that's why it struggled getting much of a theatrical release, why it couldn't get much of a positive word of mouth. Beyond being a turning point, a defining moment in American history, the Kennedy assassination is one of the first spawns of a real conspiracy theory. Was Lee Harvey Oswald alone in his attempt? Were there other shooters? Was the government involved? Was there a massive cover-up in the wake of the assassination? So for all you conspiracy theorists out there....this may not be the movie for you. 'Parkland' isn't interested in a single tidbit of that 'what if?' aspect. In general, it doesn't take a stance about much. It shows rather than tells what happened. We see it as it happened, nothing else. If you're looking for a comprehensive, analytical investigation of the Kennedy assassination, this isn't it. Instead, it's a well-told, interesting, informative look at a part of history that we've never seen before as a viewer.

To tell the countless stories, Landesman assembles quite the cast to fill out the countless speaking parts here, all those involved and effected by Kennedy's death. The Parkland Hospital medical staff includes Marcia Gay Harden, Zac Efron , Colin Hanks, Rory Cochrane and Jackie Earle Haley appearing briefly as the hospital priest. James Badge Dale plays Oswald's brother, Robert, surprised as anyone at his brother's actions, Jacki Weaver playing their delusional mother, Marguerite, Jeremy Strong giving a strong portrayal of Lee. Billy Bob Thornton and Tom Welling play Secret Service agents pursuing all leads, especially the film of the assassination shot by Abe Zapruder (Paul Giamatti). Ron Livingston and David Harbour have good parts as the FBI field agents working in Dallas who make a startling revelation about Oswald. Not necessarily huge stars, but one really solid actor after another.

I liked this movie, simple as that. The style is simple and straightforward, blending archival footage from the Kennedy's trip through Texas that eventually ended in Dallas with footage shot for this film. It is eerie and uncomfortable watching the archived footage, knowing in the matter of an hour or two President Kennedy would be dead. The sense of doom hanging over that footage is unreal and beyond uncomfortable to watch. The whole movie is, and it'd be hard not to be difficult to watch. Exactly 50 years later, it's still hard to believe this tragic event actually happened. This film had little to no buzz upon its release, but Parkland is definitely worth catching up with.

Parkland (2013): ***/****

10 Years

I had a momentary freakout recently following my 28th birthday. It's 2013. I graduated from high school in 2003. By my count, that means I've been out of high school for 10 years. Oh, no! Ten year reunion! I can't be that old, can I? Thankfully no invite for said reunion has come in the mail so I can calm down a little for the time being. In the meantime, I can watch other people struggle through the same issues in 2012's 10 Years.

A moderately successful mortgage broker, late 20s Jake (Channing Tatum) is pleased with where his life is if not completely pleased. He's got a good if safe job and a smoking hot longtime girlfriend, Jess (Jenna Dewan-Tatum), so when his 10-year high school reunion pops up, Jake is both excited and nervous. His former classmates are similarly descending on the town back home, coming from all reaches of life, some more successful than others, but they seemingly all have a goal at the reunion. Just catching up with old friends, in some cases hooking up with former classmates, making apologies, or even bringing closure to certain things. The jocks, the nerds, the cheerleaders, the popular kids and the smart kids, they've all grown up to some point. For Jake though, he's most worried about seeing his ex-girlfriend, Mary (Rosario Dawson), and what she's up to after a tough breakup for the both of them. The reunion promises to be very interesting for all involved.

For starters, let me clear things up. I needed something remotely coherent for the plot description so I streamlined things...a lot. While dreamy Channing Tatum is in the movie a lot, he's merely a part of a very strong ensemble cast. So that's it. This isn't his movie on his own. Okay, now that we've got that out of the way, let's move on. 'Years' comes from first-time director Jamie Linden who has worked previously as both a writer and producer. It's a more than solid debut, showcasing an ease with the script and talent that should bode well for Linden's future films. Reunion movies can be pretty common from the lousy American Reunion to The Big Chill and plenty in between, but Linden's film has a nice, easygoing charm about it. The IMDB rating is currently at 6.0 (low if you ask me) so naturally I liked it and am now assuming I missed something about it.

Writing the script and directing his feature debut, Linden does a really solid job sticking with what works in the reunion genre but managing to keep it fresh. He throws a lot of characters together, some more familiar than others, and lets them do their thing. The beauty of having so many characters is that we get to run the gamut of high school all over again. We do see all those dreaded high school cliques from the jocks, bullies and nerds to the cheerleaders, hot chicks and loners and everything in between. The movie runs 100 minutes and is basically moving along non-stop, flitting around among all the characters and their issues. As is the case with any ensemble, some are more interesting than others, but most importantly, none of them are dull. From the reunion to the post-reunion booze fest at a local bar, it's a lot of fun to watch.

Again proving me wrong after years of doubting him, Tatum seems right at home as Jake, the former jock who's now in a good place but always worried what could have been with Dawson's Mary (now married to the older Ron Livingston). Dewan-Tatum, Mrs. Channing Tatum, is good too in a part that avoids cliches for the most part as the worrying girlfriend. My favorite parts were Justin Long and Max Minghella as Marty, a successful publisher in NYC, and A.J., his equally successful friend struggling with some issues. They have a believable friendship, one that goes through its ups and downs as A.J. tries to "wingman" it for single Marty. I also especially liked Chris Pratt as Cully, the former bully now trying to apologize to all the then-nerds he terrorized in high school (including a very good Aaron Yoo) with Ari Gaynor as his wife, Sam, who he has two kids with. Sam wants to enjoy herself too, not just watch over Cully embracing his high school craziness.  

Not enough young talent for you? There's plenty more. Oscar Isaac is Reeves, who's recently gained a lot of popularity across the country as a pop star musician, but he just wants to talk to Kate Mara's Elise. It's a decent subplot, but probably the weakest of all the stories. Isaac and Mara are good, it's just not as interesting. Scott Porter plays Scott, a globe-trotting happy-go-luck guy with his wife, Suki (Eiko Nijo), who he met in Japan. Anthony Mackie as Andre is just looking to have some fun, especially when he sees Garrity (Brian Geraghty), a white guy who thought he was black in high school, news to his wife (Aubrey Plaza). There's also Lynn Collins as Anna, the hottest girl in high school, Marty seeing if he can make up for lost time with her. 

No point in analyzing this one too much. A fun, cute reunion story with a good mix of laughs and comedy with some actual sympathetic human emotion. What a novel concept! I especially liked the cast and feel very comfortable recommending it.

10 Years (2012): ***/****

Going the Distance

Something has changed in the romantic comedy vein. In the 1990s, stars like Tom Hanks, Meg Ryan, Julia Roberts and Sandra Bullock starred in cute, funny and worthwhile rom-coms that guys can actually tolerate. Something changed there in the early 2000s where the genre became one shrill, obnoxious movie after another (Guys need not apply). Oddly enough, director Judd Apatow is responsible for another change in the genre. Adult romantic comedies that men and women alike can enjoy, a trend he started with 40-Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up. No Apatow connection, another in the same vein is the enjoyable 2010's Going the Distance.

Hours off a breakup with his girlfriend, New Yorker Garrett (Justin Long) is in a bar with two of his friends when he meets Erin (Drew Barrymore). They hit it off immediately, ending up back at Garrett's apartment. But the next morning rather than part after a one-night stand, they exchange numbers and agree to go out again. The young New Yorkers start dating and fall hard for each other, but there's a catch. Erin is heading back to California soon to continue her graduate work at Stanford. Both Erin and Garrett know the pitfalls of a long distance relationship, but they decide they don't want to break up, giving the long distance thing a try. It starts off smoothly enough, but after weeks and months apart, the struggles start to pop up. They still feel strongly for each other, but is it enough to get them through an extended rough patch, especially when Erin is offered a job in San Francisco?

From director Nanette Burstein and screenplay writer Geoff LaTulippe, 'Distance' struggled mightily in theaters during its theatrical run in 2010. It doesn't rewrite the romantic comedy genre -- I imagine that would be tough to do -- but again, I liked it. I didn't rush out to see it or rent it in 2010, but watched it recently and enjoyed it from beginning to end (call it The Girlfriend Effect, seriously though, I did like it). One of the best things going for it is that the story is based in some sort of reality, not movie reality. 'Distance' tries to show some sort of dating reality, of being single, of being married. It is funny but I never got the sense it was trying too hard. These aren't movie boyfriend and girlfriends with all sort of outlandish, out of this world problems. It's just a young couple fresh into a relationship trying to work things out. Pretty crazy, huh? 

Sink or swim moment here for a romantic comedy. Do you like the stars? Are they so annoying you're actively rooting against them? Do you want them to meet a gruesome end? Thankfully, the casting of Barrymore and Long is a winner. Dating at the time the movie was filmed, they have an easygoing, natural chemistry that flows well as the relationship gets deeper and more emotionally connected. Sure, Long's name is Garrett (cool movie name, dude), and he works for a hip record label (are there 6 million record labels out there so all hip movie characters can work at one?), but Long does a good job as a pretty typical single guy on the dating scene. I thought maybe Barrymore was a tad old to play the character but then realized she's 35 and just seems like she's older because she's been acting since the early 1980s. Either way, I liked the duo together.

Really though, the biggest reason I'll recommend this 2010 romantic comedy is the rest of the cast. I liked Barrymore and Long together, but the strength is in the supporting players, especially Charlie Day (of It's Always Sunny) and Jason Sudeikis as Garrett's friends Dan and Box. The duo and the relationship among the friends gives a funnier dimension to the story. Day's Dan has no filter (not by choice, he's just goofy and talkative) and as Garrett's roommate, likes to DJ his hook-ups, listening through the paper thin walls in one of the movie's best running bits. Sudeikis' Box has grown a mustache in hopes of hooking up with a cougar looking to reclaim her younger glory days. While I liked the entire movie, I especially liked scenes with Long, Day and Sudeikis. The script gives them some really funny moments to work with, and they don't disappoint.

Sit back down though, we've also got Christina Applegate as Erin's worrying older sister, Corinne, with comedian Jim Gaffigan especially memorable as her husband. Ron Livingston has a thankless, quick part as Garrett's boss at the record label while Oliver Jackson-Cohen is Erin's dreamy co-worker, a smooth English bartender. Rob Riggle has a good one-scene appearance as a married man who's less than pleased with Garrett's big-time efforts to impress Erin while Leighton Meester plays Garrett's girlfriend in the opening scene.

Romantic comedies can get too goofy, too stupid and as was the case with the recent This Is 40, too self-indulgent. This was an enjoyable, very funny and at times decently smart romantic comedy that benefits from a strong cast. Now, if we could get more romantic comedies like this, then we would be onto something.

Going the Distance (2010): ***/****