Road to a Blockbuster: TED 2 Shits on the World

The clock has once again struck Friday, and considering that weekend real estate is a precious commodity in the Summer months, we've got another big flick premiere on our hands. It's time to assess the critical, commercial, and most importantly, the cultural potential of this weekend's releases. Big budgeted, high profile blockbusters by their nature have a lot more weight to throw around than any other film, and even though we're also seeing Max (2015), which is about some retarded dog or something, if it doesn't have a "Mad" in front of it, I'm not totally interested. So we're talking TED 2 (2015).

Comedic sequels are difficult for every Waynes World 2 (1993) or Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (2008), there's a Caddyshack II (1988) or Evan Almighty (2007). That's really just the tip of the terrible comedy sequel iceberg. That iceberg goes really, really deep. It destroyed the Titanic! And that's an even more suitable metaphor by the fact that it's not funny at all.

Why do comedy sequels suck so much? It's probably because they lack that critical impulse of surprise that the first one pulls off. The sequels I named above came pretty close to matching their predecessor, mostly from taking their great characters and sticking them in slightly different, but still believable (for the characters...) situations. I still call Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013) one of the rare sequels that actually improved upon its original material, but I'll also recognize that I'm virtually alone in that assertion. On the other end of the long-range sequel is Dumb and Dumber To (2014), which I harshly criticized for doing the exact same shit as the first movie, which spat in the face of how well Anchorman 2 handled itself.

I do love how this joke turned into a
well-balanced, rewarding marriage.

TED 2 is of course an entirely different animal (a bear!) because it's coming out relatively quickly after its predecessor, TED (2012). TED was really notable as Seth MacFarlane's first foray into live action writing and directing after basing the majority of his career making terrible, terrible cartoon shows. TED was also hilarious - in a completely uncompromising, terrible, "Hey Norah Jones, thanks for 9/11" sort of way. It had a confidence and fearlessness that is lacking in plenty of comedy these days that's more comfortable getting a quick laugh from a reference or complacent silliness than anything edgy.

Of course, there's difference between crass shock humour for the sake of being shocking and something that's actually satirical or says something interesting about its topic. TED is also full of consumer comedy, which often blends in horribly with its shock humour, resulting, for example, in creating a pretty awful Asian stereotype for sake of completing a Flash Gordon (1980) reference. It's an odd film but a pretty successful debut for MacFarlane by all means. It made a ton of money, was liked by critics...as much as they were ever going to, and was pretty damn funny.

In the years since MacFarlane churned out A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014), which was much of the same brand of half-reference/half-shock comedy, wrapped in a Western shell which was all kind of weird, but not nearly as awful as most people thought. In the past year it's been outgrossed by Horrible Bosses 2 (2014), Dumb and Dumber To, The Wedding Ringer (2015), Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 (2015), and even Let's Be Cops (2014), which doubled its domestic gross. And if you're thinking "Damn, I forgot about that movie," or even "I've never heard of that movie!" rest assured, that's the point. A Million Ways came and went with the legit threat to put an end to MacFarlane's career. It'd be different if it were just a terrible movie that bombed, but it was a terribly offensive movie that no one liked. I mean, I don't have a problem with a film being offensive, but there has to be some redeemableness, sympathy, or satire there for the offense to work. A Million Ways just kind of offends and then smiles hoping you'll get it.

This would again be acceptable if it were funny. It's biggest showpieces just don't land with the unprecedented hilarity they need to to keep the film's steam up. Now, I've shit all over this, and I said earlier that it doesn't deserve its reputation, and hopefully this explains a little bit why it gained that awful reputation. I'll just say that it isn't any worse a comedy than Horrible Bosses (2011) or We're the Millers (2013) or any other forgettable comedy that's done well. It just bombed critically and commercially because of little ways it pushed things over the edge.

To be fair, no one is ever doing this with E.J. Manuel.

TED 2 is really MacFarlane's last hope. It's back in his wheelhouse - trusted material he kicked ass with before along with making a ton of money. By all means fucking this up would be a disaster. I don't know why I'm still cheering for him, actually. I hate Family Guy and pretty much everything else he's done. I did love his Oscar hosting, because that room needs its balls busted. And I do love his fearlessness. I guess I just wished he could craft a better joke or outlet that strayed farther from consumer and more into character. I mean, he has good characters! And he crafts good stories! We know you can write, Seth, why do you just go the lazy way out all the time?

Critics have already savaged TED 2, but who cares. Culturally, I can see this adding to the mythos of the first film, but not really branching out on its own, although at first glance it would appear to be striking out on its own rather than re-hashing the same shit. I'm also curious whether or not that hyped up Tom Brady cameo falls on its face in the wake of Deflategate. Nah, to New Englanders it doesn't matter. He still has glowing junk. Commercially it's hard to say. We've been kind of starved for good R-rated comedies this year, and there's nothing really in its way for a while, so it ought do do well. That is, if it can actually escape the rather large shadows of Jurassic World (2015) and Inside Out  (2015), the latter of which has had some of the best word of mouth of the year. You know, those crowds may not be too similar.

What do you think? Seeing TED 2 this weekend? Or time for another crying sesh with Inside Out? Leave one below!

First Impressions: Dumb and Dumber To

I am happy to announce that after seeing this, everything I said would be wrong, happened. This is not a good movie in any sort of way, and possibly even reaches worse depths than Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd (2003). At least this holds up and the franchise isn't ruined because another terrible movie already did that to Dumb and Dumber (1994). The big question here, though, is how did a sequel to one of the funniest movies of all time, featuring the same directors and cast, completely fail?

The simple reason is that a lot can change in twenty years, and while 1994 was the start of a hot streak for the Farrelly Brothers, which has cooled considerably, as well as Jim Carrey's comedic peak, saying that a movie should be good because all the same people are back doesn't really have any merit. Not only is it really tough to replicate long-term success, especially in comedy as voices and tastes change, but there's never going to be any comedic value to a property that lacks strong story and characters, which Dumb and Dumber To (2014) bungles for no good reason other than a desperate outstretching of effort. Needless to say, if you care, SPOILERS for this wretched sin against God come from here on out.

Comedy sequels are always really hard to do, because it's so easy to fall into the same jokes and plots that worked the first time. I've spoken at length about this this year, notably with 22 Jump Street (2014), both in my preview and review. 22 Jump Street is simultaneously spectacular and problematic because it surpasses its predecessor in humour in nearly every way, and pushes its meta-content to a ridiculous level. What I argued brought it down, however, was the fact that although it's continually commenting and consciously fighting against itself to "do the same thing it did last time," it ultimately doesn't break from the plot beats established in 21 Jump Street (2012). Therefore, it kind of has its cake and eats it too: it's able to make fun of every stupid sequel that just does the same thing while it, itself, does the same thing.

22 Jump Street gets away with this, however, because it has such strong character moments - which in an artfully crafted comedy, leads to the funniest parts in the film. The funniest moments are all steeped in character interactions, specifically between Jonah Hill, C-Tates and Ice Cube. These moments happen because the characters are well constructed with easily recognizable traits, desires, motivations, and conflicting opinions that bounce off each other in interesting, and often very hilarious ways. I was really sour on 22 Jump Street when it first came out, but by now the humour has grown on me and I can appreciate it much more for what it is trying to do.

There were some creative vehicle choices.

The point of all this in a post ostensibly about Dumb and Dumber To is that a movie with as canny a pair of directors as the Farrellys cannot make this film in a post-22 Jump Street world. It did too good a job of calling out these stupid cash grab sequels. Comedies by their nature should be biting at this - not necessarily in a meta way, but comedians should have some kind of self-awareness. That's where satire comes from - letting people in on the joke of life. If The Three Stooges (2012) is any indication, though, the Farrelly Brothers actually have no idea how to be self-aware, use it to their comedic advantage, or have any idea how to deliver what people want. They are insanely out of touch with their audience, which again, is mind-blowing considering they offered easily three of the Top Comedies of the 90s (Kingpin [1996] and There's Something About Mary [1998] are the others). Perhaps that's just it - they left all their sensibilities in the 90s.

Despite my ranting about 22 Jump Street and that film's own ranting about sequels themselves, there have actually been some high profile comedies lately that completely or mostly threw out what came before. Horrible Bosses 2 (2014) offers strong character work with a fresh(-ish) premise that doesn't beat for beat follow its predecessor, even if that was a mostly toothless comedy (ooooh targeting bosses? No one has thought to hate those). More relevant, though, is Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013), which I would calmly say surpassed its predecessor on nearly every level. I think it got some flack for this, strangely - it wasn't as quotable as Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004), and nearly didn't have any callbacks, which I think people were expecting. We're literally in an age where we can neither create wholly new sequels nor carbon copy sequels. I, frankly, want new every time, if new fails. Anchorman 2 is an excellent example of a long-term sequel that was highly anticipated and did pretty damn well.

Dumb and Dumber To is pretty bad, but it looks much worse in comparison to these flicks for not fitting into this new world. It's also weird how it resists for a really long time, but the only result of this is an aimless first half-hour that doesn't know what it's doing. And the jokes aren't even that bad, and once the film gets rolling on the road with the two characters, becoming more focused on just putting them in wacky situations, it finds some sweet spots. But the primary reason for its dismal reception comes down to the characters, chiefly Jim Carrey. There is just a lack of tact to the film that renders Carrey completely unsympathetic, which is essential to buying into the film. Again, we need to talk about how character is the basis of the film, and there's so much distance here because of how awful his character is that the rest completely falls about. The audience can't buy into his hijinks.

Now, Lloyd Christmas is essentially the same character, which is a pretty dark and selfish character to begin with, but in Dumb and Dumber, he came across as simply more innocent and misguided than just blatantly mean. It's not like this is an outrageous thing for Carrey's comic persona, but if you're going to go this nuts with his unscrupulousness, you need to have some kind of balance. Like The Cable Guy (1996) worked because Carrey was the kind of annoying sociopath character he always played, but people reacted reasonably and hated him within that film's world. This is why The Cable Guy is an incredible commentary on these kinds of films the same way Funny People (2009) used Adam Sandler to comment on Adam Sandler. It is clear, however, that neither Carrey nor Sandler understood this, or if they did, like money more.

For a flick made in 2014, this is also strangely misogynistic and racist. Harry and Lloyd sort of acted like this back in the day, but that was really them being immature more than anything - it was expressed as them having that 14-year old boy mentality ("Nice set of hooters you got there."), that was more out of naïveté than degradation. But things like laughing at a woman doctor and Jim Carrey busting at Harry's Asian parents come off as really inappropriate. It's not like it's being dark or edgy by pushing the envelope - look at Neighbors (2014), which uses the n-word twice and comes across as less racist. You can even cite That's My Boy (2012) or The Campaign (2012) as recent comedies with blatantly racist jokes, but they at least showed their victims as actual human beings that both got back at their ignorant oppressors. Carrey makes fun of the Asians as stereotypes but they're nothing but stereotypes and there's no comeuppance, which is kind of awful.

I think this has something to do with the age of the principal duo. It seems okay when they are younger and can play up being a little ignorant, but as 50-somethings it feels really wrong. It's less confused and more mean, which isn't great for sympathizing with the protagonists, which is a huge part of getting into this movie. And it's not like Jeff Daniels was making Black jokes at Victoria Rowell - there's not really a history of the kind of anti-social behavior on display here.

To some part I get it, I mean, the movie does piece together the fact that these guys are the dumbest folks on the planet and that only they would think to laugh at the idea of a woman doctor. In its own way the film is saying that these kinds of attitudes are really dumb, but at the same time it's again this issue where it renders the characters more unsympathetic rather than providing any artful meta-commentary. And dude, I loved That's My Boy - seriously, I'm one of the only people on the planet to do so - I really dig this kind of unapologetic crudeness, but it doesn't work in Dumb and Dumber To.

If we're comparing the two films, and we can pretty easily, because it's essentially about two characters who are trying to like each other, but keep being dicks to each other, which pushes them apart, we can see some reasoning here. Adam Sandler is clearly analogous to Jim Carrey and Andy Samberg can be our Jeff Daniels. While Sandler ruins his life, it's ultimately for the better and he helps Samberg shed some shackles and become who he really is inside. This is after Sandler humbles himself and finds redemption of his own. The only brief bit that comes close to this in Dumb and Dumber To is Lloyd's realization that the daughter he wants to bang is actually his, which is such a revelation on its own (one that I thought was awfully clever and a nearly perfect way to grow both characters...until the film reneged it). This is fuddled, however, by the pressing background issue of Harry's kidney need, which is also completely fake.

Oh yeah, and these two. I'm not even going to
talk about these two. Rob Riggle was pretty great, actually.

Every real moment of character growth in this film is undermined, and again, look at any of the other comedies I've listed here that share similar moments of grotesque, crudeness, and hilarity - it's not like this film needed to shed any sentimentality to be funny. Dumb and Dumber (2014) keenly pushed its complicated background sub-story behind, to the point where it's incomprehensible, but deftly so that it didn't interfere with the main story. The sequel puts way too much emphasis on the weirdly complicated kill-the-old-genius plot along with the kidney thing that distracts from what the movie is actually about, which is this father / daughter relationship that doesn't actually exist. This ultimately creates a really hollow experience.

The reveal that neither has ever had sex, or even knows what sex is is decent, but part of the film would have been a bit more interesting if they stuck with the reveal that Fanny Felcher was Lloyd's daughter. She's such a dead ringer for it, and actress, Rachel Melvin does a nice job keeping up with the dumb leads. At least 22 Jump Street had Rooster's High School football team be the Plainview Red Herrings. The film's concluding notion that Felcher is better off living with her biological grandparents, who are the parents of a guy from the past named "Pee Stain" that died directly because of actions taken by Lloyd, is a disheartening vote of no confidence in the film's leads.

It's a similar ending to Dumb and Dumber in that the duo are two dumb to hold on to a good thing when they have it, but the key is that they of their own ignorant volition discarded the first film's gift of being Bikini Tour Oil Boys and here a redemptive fatherhood (and let's face it, whoever the father was, the other would have a large role to play with equal character pay-off, and Harry would have made a much better uncle because he wouldn't be trying to fuck Lloyd's daughter all the time) is stolen away from them, seemingly at the cruel behest of the film itself in an otherwise arbitrary move. And by all means, Fanny would have been pretty happy hanging out with Lloyd and Harry for the foreseeable future. She was just a rare, perfect match for them. Mostly because of dumbness.

But do you know what this film's greatest sin was? Putting Bill Murray and Jim Carrey on the same set without anyone ever knowing about it and completely squandering that opportunity in a forgettable Breaking Bad gag.

Fuck you, Farrelly Brothers.

An Analyzation of the Targets of the Past Forty Years of Comedy Films

It's interesting to determine what spurs the conversation on the Internet. You'd think that in general, with instant and continual access of every bit of information known to humanity, we'd talk about everything all the time. Instead, there is a steady stream of contemporary events that inform pop culture discussion. This week, even though it hasn't really been a domineering critical or commercial success by any means, everyone seems to have either the revitalization or desolation of sword-and-sandal epics in the wake of 300: Rise of an Empire (2014). Likewise, a few weeks ago in the wake of the death of Harold Ramis, everyone couldn't stop talking about the monumental influence he had on the modern comedy, even if Chevy Chase, Bill Murray, Doug Kenney, and John Landis are probably equally to blame.

Still, I was attracted to this piece by the New York Post, which essentially lamented the fact that the comedy films of old drove their satire through targeting venerable but corrupted institutions while the comedies of today only target poop and vaginas. While any kind of nostalgia-thumping like this is basically selective remembering (if you look at a list like this, most of the films we remember and talk about today are mostly satires - which is fair to say that they have perpetuated in our culture, but were far from the only films being produced or popular), it also drew me into a larger conversation - how do we judge the evolution of the modern Hollywood comedy film based on its target?

1970s: Institutional-Smearing Comedy

If we're looking at the big 70s films that we remember today - Robert Altman's M*A*S*H* (1970), a few Mel Brooks opuses (Young Frankenstein [1974] and Blazing Saddles [1974]), a few Monty Python opuses (Holy Grail [1975] and Life of Brian [1979], Burt Reynolds' role-defining Smokey and the Bandit (1977), Ramis' aforementioned Animal House (1978), and the greatest comedy of all time, Steve Martin's The Jerk (1979) - we do see a lot of busting on the stodgy and pompous institutions that control aspects of society, social customs, or even the acceptable narrative structure of Hollywood films themselves.

The target in a comedy is the butt of the joke. The Post piece suggests that targets in the 70s and 80s were great and powerful, compared to the crass subject matter of today. That's largely true. From the list above we see targets including the Korean War, racism, zealous religious followers, good ol' boy law enforcement, and academia. I'm for a bit of a loss, though, who the targets were for  Young Frankenstein, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and The Jerk. Do we have, respectively, Old Hollywood, English Legend, and uh, biker chicks?

The 70s were full of irreverence. As New Hollywood emerged through the collapse of the production code as well as the advent of modern blockbuster filmmaking, comedy reflected these thrown off shackles through its gutting of societal structure and thriving on high concept ensemble pieces. There's no central star in most of these films - it's more groups of people getting together and lampooning an established part of society.

1980s: The Satire Evolves on a Grand Scale

Comedies from the 80s explode a bit, though that may be due to the fact that as of late the 1980s have sort of been canonized as this decade where everything awesome originated - after all, the toys of the 80s are the biggest films of today. We have this strange adoration for the slick veneer of the 80s, even though it was really as shallow and money-driven as it's usually stereotyped. It still offered some of the best big-movies of its time - what other decade could we find so many forgettable Best Picture Winners and so many adored blockbusters?

When I think 80s Comedy my mind turns to Airplane! (1980), Caddyshack (1980), The Blues Brothers (1980), Stripes (1981), Vacation (1983), Beverly Hills Cop (1984), Ghostbusters (1984), This is Spinal Tap (1984), Back to the Future (1985), Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986), Planes, Trains, and Automobiles (1987), Coming to America (1988), Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988), and Major League (1989). Who are our targets? Or another way we can look at it - who are our villains?

There is a bit of a mix here for sure. From this list we can see country clubs, Illinois Nazis, the Army, the police force, the EPA, and school administrators. There are, however, already a good mix of the kind of personal comedy that would define the Apatow era. Vacation and Planes, Trains, and Automobiles are both disastrous road trip movies where the greatest obstacles to the characters' final destination are the characters themselves. The high concept for Coming to America is an African Prince traveling to the United States to find a bride, but neither love nor Africa is really lampooned. Well, maybe the latter. Other films like Airplane! and This is Spinal Tap have achieved immortality through defying convention and digging more into specific characters with quick and dirty jokes than having a major target.

The 80s still evokes a lot of ensemble, but there's a bit of a paring down throughout the decade, so that eventually we see all these duos popping up. Doc and Marty, Neal and Dell, Eddie and Roger. Hell, Eddie Murphy's Black Cop / White Cop shtick defined a whole genre of buddy action films. There is still a lot of institution-bashing, but there is more introspection going on. More than that though, there are actually strong themes of convention shifting, whether it be from the improv-driven Spinal Tap, the animated Chinatown-esque Roger Rabbit, or the slapstick-or-bust rapidfire nature of Airplane!

1990s: The Megastar Era

These films keep paring down. From the 80s duos we see instead these big star-driven vehicles in the 90s, mostly for Jim Carrey, Adam Sandler, or Ben Stiller. There is still this mixture of targets, though, and the most successful of these 90s films are those that emulate the standards of the 1970s. Our list of general 90s comedies we're still talking about includes, Home Alone (1990), Wayne's World (1992), Cool Runnings (1993), Groundhog Day (1993), Ace Venture: Pet Detective (1994), Dumb & Dumber (1994), Clerks (1994), Billy Madison (1995), Friday (1995), Tommy Boy (1996), Happy Gilmore (1996), Austin Powers (1997), The Big Lebowski (1998), There's Something About Mary (1998), American Pie (1999), and Office Space (1999).

Now, feel free to debate my selection here (Why for instance, do I feel like Tommy Boy is more relevant than Black Sheep [1995]? I don't know. It just seems to me based on no evidence that more people like it and it's a bit of a better movie. Ditto with leaving out The Mask [1994]), but I'd call these in general the crop of 90s Comedy Films that peaked commercially (sometimes critically), but everyone's pretty cool with still watching today. So, what kind of institutions are we still targeting?

Olympic bobsledding...and uh...school administrators and golf again. That's about it. Suddenly these movies are about one central doofus character, sometimes a duo again like Wayne and Garth or Harry and Lloyd. Gone are the teams or camaraderie, though it returned a bit with fare like Lebowski, Pie, and Office Space by decades' end. The 90s are probably our most vapid decade. It's fitting for a decade where we were on top. With a booming economy and a Cold War victory in hand, it seemed like for all our angst, our institutions seemed to be working - so why target them? We lost a bit of that critical eye, because we weren't in fact as angry as we probably should have been. We had a pot-smoking, saxophone-playing president and Arsenio had his own TV show. We're pretty close to that point again, so who knows how the rest of the 2010s will play out.

There is some saying that comedy fails during really good times, which is perhaps why when looking over this list you don't get quite the feeling as you do when checking out the flicks from the 70s and 80s. These are classics, but more in a really frat-y way, and even though There's Something About Mary is really just as classy as Animal House it loses some charm, maybe because Stiller somehow is less charismatic and more neurotic than John Belushi. Or maybe it is because the 90s asks us to question less. It's more complacent with its authority figures. EXCEPT for Adam Sandler movies - which is why in the 90s Sandler was really the most brilliant auteur out there and truly emulating Ramis' efforts a decade and a half earlier.

2000s: Character and Self-Reflexive Comedy

This is tricky, because as I pick the most representative films of the 2000s there is sure to be more debate over what has really had the most influence. Still, when I think of 2000s people still talk about today, I think The Replacements (2000), The Royal Tenenbaums (2001), Super Troopers (2001), Wet Hot American Summer (2001), Zoolander (2001), Old School (2003), Anchorman (2004), Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (2004), Napoleon Dynamite (2004), Shaun of the Dead (2004), The 40-Year Old Virgin (2005), Wedding Crashers (2005), Beerfest (2006), Borat (2006), Talladega Nights (2006), Knocked Up (2007), Superbad (2007), Tropic Thunder (2008), Pineapple Express (2008), Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008), Step Brothers (2008), and The Hangover (2009).

Now, how come I can only name eight films from the 70s I'd consider relevant and twenty films from the 2000s? Well, time hasn't yet sorted out the best from the only very good yet. But to be honest, if you look at what these films are doing, you'll find a couple things that begin to circle back to what the 70s was doing - ensemble satires, with most importantly, the addition of a ton of character-driven comedy.

Ensembles are most visible in Wes Anderson, Broken Lizard, and Judd Apatow films. Even Will Ferrell comedies are pretty scared of leaving him up there alone to do Jim Carrey-like shtick. It's why the Ace Ventura-like extremely annoying character was brilliantly lampooned in a film like The Cable Guy (1998) - because in reality, no one could buddy with that kind of person and emerge with a complete life. Ferrell is much softer, and has made headway into these sort of buddy comedies reminiscent of the 80s. So, targets?

NFL Unions, family structures, highway patrolman, summer camps, male models, the fraternity system, local newscasters, racism, nerds, horror films, antisemitism and jingoistic beliefs, NASCAR, big budget Hollywood filmmaking, and anti-marijuana laws. I would contend that a film like Pineapple Express encourages questioning of authority at least as much as Stripes does. For the rest, the targets are smaller, more intimate. You can see a clear declining of really solid targets from about 2006 on. Forgetting Sarah Marshall and The Hangover, again the largest obstacles characters face are themselves. These films really dig into interpersonal relationships across their ensemble as the cause of conflict rather than an outside antagonist. I do, however, want to focus on one more decade, even three years' worth, to at least suggest that we're starting to be encouraged to question again, perhaps because we're once again in a time of absolute shit.

2010s: What the Hell do We do Now?

We're far too close to the past three and a quarter years of film to really figure out who is influencing who and how this decade is developing. I can, however, give you three films that have succeeded in being just as subversive as anything the 1970s gave us. For better or worse, they are three Will Ferrell movies: The Other Guys (2010), The Campaign (2012), and The LEGO Movie (2014).

The Other Guys had a lot to say about the foreground and background characters of action films, but as per Ice T's narration, the core Madoff-esque scheme that drives the plot, and the end credits infographic, it's really taking a very sly dig at the financial industry under the silly sheen of a buddy cop comedy film. In an age where we're more ostrich-like than ever while getting screwed over a rapidly growing income gulf, it's startling that such a mainstream comedy featuring A-List actors of both comedy and drama would contain such a subversive message.

Likewise, The Campaign is one of the more underrated films of 2012 with its virulent but believable take on the rigors of political office-seeking. It offers a brutal glimpse into the insane lengths it takes to win one of these contests, the rapid reaction of middle America to slight changes in public figure perception, and of course, the vested interest of nefarious corporations looking out for not the country's interest, but their own. It's another film that strongly asks us to question everything about our electorate institution.

Finally, The LEGO Movie is probably one of the most subversive films of all time, as I've recently and neatly outlined here. It pleads for a line to be drawn between creative thought and stuffy mind-destroying cultural oppression. Its largest target is the banality and unoriginality of pop culture itself.

You know, we could also throw in Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013) for its succinct skewering  of the 24-hour news cycle, but that would be a little much, wouldn't it? It also features an ensemble cast and a tendency towards slapstick and silliness over crudity. So, why would anyone complain about this film? It's everything the 70s and 80s wanted to be. Which is why it's set in 1980. Adam McKay and Will Ferrell are truly the Ramis / Murray of this generation. Actually, it's more like Ramis and Murray were the McKay / Ferrell of their generation.

I have a lot of confidence for the future of comedy. I'm not sure that institutionally-targeted comedy makes the best kind of film, or that satire is even justifiable in the sense that it leads to comfortable inaction rather than actual policy change. In the end, none of this really matters. As long as it's funny.

Looking Back on Looking Forward: The Final Critical Look at 2013's Most Anticipated Cultural Events

Two-Thousand and Thirteen brought us many things, and a year ago today we were highly anticipating a whole smorgasbord of great movies and television. While some of these turned out pretty great, many more were a big let down, but more than anything, our Big 2013 Moments were really full of meh. As we look back on looking forward today, let us remember how everything was kind of good.

#13: Oz the Great and Powerful (03/08)

We should know better. This looked pretty okay, and it turned out...pretty okay. It's not an aggravatingly stupid blockbuster (see: Jack the Giant Slayer [2013]), but it really didn't knock it out of the park either. It certainly looked pretty and had some pretty cool moments, especially its ending, which was real solid. Other than that this ain't reviving Oz. Or Sam Raimi's cultural adoration.

#12: Warm Bodies (02/01)

I was pleasantly surprised by this take on the ever growing star-crossed monster horror romantic comedy genre. Rob Corddry offers an unexpectedly good supporting turn here, and the film made us sympathize with zombies like we never believed we could. I'm not sure if we'll be talking about this ten years down the line, but for now, I'm happy with the call.

#11: Pain & Gain (04/26)

Michael Bay's best ever movie, a dark action comedy that scews real dark and cray all the time. Mark and the Rock have never been more ripped while the film actually rips apart expectations towards conquering the American dream and the true meaning of fitness. You need to be a little touched in the head to really enjoy this thing, but if you're on board, it's a trip.

#10: Star Trek into Darkness (05/17)

Here's our first major disappointment. See, there's really two movies here. The first is an intriguing, mysterious set-up with political undertones and unspeakable violence. The second is an inverse re-make of Wrath of Khan (1982) with softer balls and tons of uncomfortable 9/11 imagery. It's not great. Here and there this film found the energy of Abrams' first Star Trek (2009) that made the geekiest sci-fi franchise cool again (or for the first time?), but this is just another mindless tentpole begging for its scraps.

#9: Iron Man 3 (05/03)

Superhero villains forever upended in a film that's way more fun than it deserves to be. Every problem here stems from its forced collusion with The Avengers (2012), which points more to the fault of giant self-sustaining immortal franchises than anything in Shane Black's writing. Everything original here (yes in a threequel. Yes, using every technique Shane Black used 25 years ago) works and breathes some life into what could have been a damned stale Marvel cookie cutter film. Now if only Stark's fully articulated character arc could stick through The Avengers 2: Age of Who Cares (2015).

#8: The Wolverine (07/24)

When your last film is X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009), there's not much room to go besides up. The second solo James Howlett flick ditched just about everything comfortable, including familiar characters, actors, and settings, and set out to tell a bold story from the Wolverine canon, essentially showing where these superhero films can go when there's a lot less pressure to be big and dominating. There were some problems with plot, acting, and just about everything else, but I dig the ground uncovered. More please.

#7: The Return of Community (02/07)

Here's an incredible let down. The Fourth "Gas Leak" season of Community was tepid at best, with a continual effort to try way to hard that feel short just about every damn time. It was nigh unbearable to suffer through the mangled tone from a Harmon-less world that couldn't find its footing between heartfelt, hilarious, and sappy. Season 5 actually premiered this evening, and delivered two episodes better than this whole sorry lot.

#6: Elysium (08/09)

With some pretty high hopes Blomkampt and Damon delivered a pretty fun late summer flick, even if its political subtext was pushed a little too heavy for it to be as subversive as District 9 (2009). Sharlto Copley probably delivered the villain of the year, but in general, we forgot about this film as soon as September hit. Actually, I totally forgot to place that facial reconstruction scene on our scenes of the year list. That's exactly what I'm talking about - a generally mediocre film overshadowed its variable really cool moments.

#5: Pacific Rim (07/12)

Here we saw some promises finally delivered. There were actually a good amount of big original movies this summer, although conceptually, many were pretty derivative of what's come before (Oblivion [2013] and Elysium may be the biggest offenders). Pacific Rim was more an entry into the underdone Kaiju genre than a total rip-off, even if it was full of clever homages. It was probably the funnest damn blockbuster of the whole year, even if Charlie Hunnam may join Taylor Kitsch and Garrett Hedlund as horrible stereotypical angsty white protagonists that I do not care about ever seeing in a movie again.

#4: The World's End (10/25)

And we even got it early - The World's End was so worth a very long wait after Hot Fuzz (2007) and blew our pretty high expectations out of the water. It was original, culturally significant, witty, engaging, and hilarious - the perfect late summer comedy riff. Anticipation delivered.

#3: This is The End (06/14)

I don't actually think we'll have an issue differentiating these two end-of-the-world comedies, because both were so good yet so different. The is The End reached the highest peaks of meta-comedy with humour as block as the demon cock that rapes Jonah Hill. Just picture him in The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), he deserved it. I'm not sure I've ever laughed so hard in a movie theater, although I may have been the only one. Consistently rude, insane, and full of obscure Pineapple Express (2008) references, this was a perfect film for niche Apatow fans and a damn confident directorial debut from writing partners Rogen and Evan Goldberg.

#2: Anchorman: The Legend Continues (12/20)

I was never sure what to really expect out of this one. What they ended up churning out was this extremely silly but politically poignant 2013 answer to Network (1976), with more ridiculous cameos than any movie will ever have ever. Everything clicked, even the stuff that didn't quite work, and without a whiff of caring about the hype, this one knocked it out.

#1: The Hangover Part III (05/24)

I feel pretty ashamed that I listed this as #1. It was pretty torrid, all things considered, largely because they attempted the same basic formula without the well-used pretense. It makes sense that the best scenes in this flick were the shoudy Chang opening and the re-hash wedding credits aftermath scene. Debauchery is all this is good for, and in a year where so many other black comedies got it right (in addition to Pain & Gain and This is The End, see the aforementioned Wolf of Wall Street. Or even You're Next [2013]), it's even more pathetic that this got it so wrong.

Stay tuned for what we're looking at in 2014! Onward, Commander!

The Road to a Blockbuster: Is Anchorman the Most Marketed Movie Ever?

Around a decade or so ago a small film came out featuring a once funny SNL alum who was more famous for playing an Elf. A few years ago I wrote an essay exclaiming the wonder of Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004), proclaiming its great features, such as its odd competing realities, lack of a villain, and nature of toying with its audience between reality and expectation. This was all fine and good, and Anchorman was forever this immortal sort of film - stuck between cult classic and mainstream hit. Ron Burgundy eventually became a household name and its cinematic mark on the world of comedy is undeniable.

Did someone say sequel?

No toilet store in sight.

Now, comedy sequels almost always suck. They lack the tension built up in the first go around, and since the comedy is derived from that tension, or at least the high concept, the sequel often stumbles. Here's a big fat list of comedy sequels, try to name even one or two good ones from that. I'm not even sure if Back to the Future: Part II (1989) or Lethal Weapon 2 (1987) should even really count, but whatever, you can throw them in. Was either really better than the first one? Some may match their predecessors, such as Clerks II (2006) or Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls (1995), but more often you get horrors like The Blues Brothers 2000 (1998) or Meet the Fockers (2004). Actually, the only flick on that list that I'll say surpasses the original is A Very Brady Sequel (1996), which rules for taking everything strange and out of place in the first film and going full on incestuously insane with it. What a delight.

Anchorman was sort of this slow burn. It's such a weird, translucent film experience that audiences for some time had trouble pinning it down. A sequel isn't totally outrageous, director Adam McKay and star Will Ferrell cobbled together Wake Up, Ron Burgundy: The Lost Movie out of spare scenes they had shot while filming Anchorman and released it on DVD in 2004. It's not a great film by any stretch and some of the edits are pretty choppy, but the evidence of where they were going with certain ideas are there and it forms a neat sort of alternate universe version of Anchorman.

Wake Up, Ron Burgundy is my primary rationale for why Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013) won't be total shit. Each of the five main actors (Ferrell, Christina Applegate, Paul Rudd, David Koechner, and Steve Carell) know their characters pretty well, and each is pretty solid (Burgundy, Veronica Corningstone, Brian Fantana, Champ Kind, and Brick Tamland). Not only that, but just watching the characters interact with each other, without even a story to go along with (such as is the case with Wake Up), is just damned funny. So here are my concerns. They center mostly around the Dodge Durango.

"There were horses and a man on fire
and I stabbed a man with a trident."

I have ranted previously about trailer abstinence, and I stand by that theory, especially when it comes to comedies. Comedies, especially ones full of potential cameos such as Anchorman 2 rely on surprise to generate that impact of cognitive conflict which results in an expression of shock, hopefully displayed as laughter. When that surprise or conflict is removed, the movie ain't funny. Think of any joke or flick you saw the first time and compare it with the eighth time. While there are cult exceptions (Anchorman itself is one that tends to grow in humour as it ages, although part of that is nostalgia, self-satisfaction for memorizing lines, and the occasional new insight), comedies need to be pristine. I still contend that's why I enjoyed The Hangover: Part II (2011), while it tends to be reviled elsewhere. There's no guarantee of this, because I went totally cold into The Hangover: Part III (2013) and that movie just sucked ass.

So I've done the impossible so far, with a few more days to go - completely avoided all of Anchorman 2's marketing material. And this has possibly been the most advertised movie of all time. Its TV commercial period has been about double standard film campaigns and the amount of product tie-ins, most blatantly Dodge Durangos and Sportscenter appearances have been over the top and ridiculous. Oh, and apparently, Durangos are selling like cray cray, by the way. I'm curious as to whether or not this is just building more of the Ron Burgundy world or spoiling all our appetites for the main course.

I'm also concerned about whether any of these ads needed to appear at all. In 2004 my generation was coming off a heady love of Will Ferrell from SNL, Zoolander (2001), and Elf (2003). I graduated High School that summer and everyone was talking Anchorman. And Spider-Man 2 (2004). While we weren't that important of a market, there's hardly a soul among us who wouldn't be interested in more Burgundy. Like me, all many out there needed was an announcement and a date and we'd show up cash in hand. No Durangos necessary.

Then again, there's a wee bit of fear from earlier. Comedy sequels suck. Not enough people knew about Wake Up, and if they did, they didn't watch it. Will Ferrell, despite my pleas to the contrary, has overstayed his welcome and settled into a rut. What is a boy to do? Advertise the fuck out of Anchorman 2 and sell that the gang is back, primed, and ready to capitalize on the greatest comedic dream team once again put on film.

Really, in the past ten years Paul Rudd and Steve Carell have become household names with plenty of their own legendary turns (I'd pick Role Models (2008) and Michael Scott. Maybe Burt Wonderstone. No, no, I can't even keep a straight face with that one). David Koechner is still the same supporting role master, from Snakes on a Plane (2006) to The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard (2009). Christina Applegate is coming off the underrated and newly cancelled Up All Night. The time is right. And that time is right now.

So how will it do? I always cheer for a movie being good, but this one's hard to figure. I have some faith in the very self-aware and parodic sensibilities of Ferrell and McKay, but with so much pressure, there's no telling where this thing can go. Anchorman was a shot in the dark. A film made by amateurs and crazy people that somehow caught on. Anchorman 2 is expected to be the prestige of Hollywood. If anything, the hype machine is going to ruin this film in the eyes of its fans. Then, twenty years from now it will join the list of  Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey (1991) and Weekend at Bernie's II (1993) as really misguided comic sequels. We'll find out this Friday, December 20th, 2013.

Until then, stay classy, Planet Earth.