Written Essays

ACE VENTURA (1994)



The state of comedy is dire, my friends. It was only a few years ago when Judd Apatow & Friends dominated the scene but audiences grew tired of it and now we're stuck with... remakes of Baywatch? What's important to remember is that masses respond to high concepts. Comedy is heightened reality and if you can come up with something ridiculous you can catch people's attention.

Ace Ventura is a great example. Unlike, say, Austin Powers which is a parody or the fourth wall breaking of Wayne's World, Ace Ventura exists in the real world. Audiences are expected to believe that someone turned pet rescuing into a form of police work. The movie acknowledges the absurdity of the concept but it also establishes the competence of the character. If someone in real life were able to pay the bills by being a pet detective he'd have to be awesome at it. This is called... adding believability. You may have noticed the lack of it in the 2016 Ghostbusters.

There's something else the movie does very well. It's something that made an impression on me in 1994 and has stuck with me in 2017. There's a creepy scene where Ace Ventura visits the home of Ray Finkle. It comes out of nowhere and is a tonal contradiction to the rest of the movie. It should have been the worst scene in the movie. It should have been the equivalent of Johnny Depp dancing in Alice in Wonderland. Instead, it's the best scene. Why? Because it's the point in the movie where you realize, "holy shit I'm invested in the story." If I randomly said to someone that the laces weren't out, they'd know exactly what I was talking about. There's a part in our brain reserved for the plot of Ace Ventura. I'm pretty sure every kicker in the NFL makes sure the laces are out.

Perhaps the biggest mistake comedy writers make is focusing too much on the jokes. I know that sounds dumb but you have to realize that jokes have a short life span. Jim Carrey talking out of his ass in 1994 was hilarious. It's not that funny in 2017. Stories, characters and world building are what resonates. The defining thing about this movie isn't the buffoonery of Jim Carrey. It's the madness of Sean Young. You came to watch a movie about a pet detective but instead got one about an NFL kicker turning into a police woman and kidnapping Dan Marino. Nearly 25 years later you still find yourself thinking, "what the fuck is this movie?"

Hold up, if someone is being forced at gunpoint to suck a dick, wouldn't they prefer a tiny one over a BBC that's going to end up going down their throat?

I remember when they devoted an entire episode to Jim Carrey. They were just baffled by this guy's success.

I vaguely, vaguely remember watching this movie with my dad when I was a little kid? Did it end with Douglas getting killed after being stabbed with a broken sword?

There was an interview with Gibson not too long ago, probably within the last year, where the interviewer asks him the status on his Viking movie. He said that he won't finance his own films anymore which makes it difficult and it also annoyed him that he came out pretty publicly with is plan to make a movie on the Vikings and before too long a show on the History channel swoops right in. It's doubtful it will see the light of day anytime soon but if I were to pick anybody to direct a movie on the Norsemen it would be him.

Observe and Report is one of the most misunderstood, underrated comedies of the last decade. I’m glad all of Rogen’s stoner fans hated it, it’s dark and smart and everything they aren’t used to.

THE CABLE GUY (1996)



There’s no doubt I took this movie for granted when it came out. I enjoyed it and understood it, but it didn’t have Jim Carrey talking out of his ass. Time has forgiven that crime. Even though we’re a growing generation of cord cutters, the story of a loner raised on media turning into a sociopath who tries to destroy a man’s life, resonates better than ever before. But message aside, the movie works because of the strange talents of Jim Carrey. He found that line between hilarious and annoying, and like a circus highwire act, never loses his balance. How did this man not even have an Oscar nomination?

FRIDAY (1995)



Happy Saturday 4/21. Let’s talk Friday. This is the movie that made a white boy in Minnesota named Dracula wanna be a gangsta. It’s the “not everything in the hood sucks” counterpoint to Boyz n the Hood, also starring Ice Cube. I remember when Friday came out it was HUGE, not in terms of box office - sadly, but in cultural impact. Everyone and their grandmama was talking about it.

I hadn’t seen it since the late 1990’s or early 2000’s and I was surprised at how incredibly well it holds up. I think the sequels, Next Friday and Friday After Next, soured my memory of the original. Whenever I think Friday the first thing that pops into my head is Ice Cube saying, “have you heard of El Niño? Well, get ready for El Negro.” Thankfully the original isn’t that silly, there isn’t a guy dressed like the Grinch robbing people. The original is a slice of life.

The story revolves around Ice Cube and Chris Tucker. Cube has just lost his job and has nothing to do except lounge all day long. That’s where Tucker comes in. He’s the best friend and local drug dealer and the one who sets the plot in motion by getting the two of them in all sorts of trouble. Watching the two of them kinda reminded me of Clerks. Cube has a “I’m not supposed to be here” attitude while Tucker is the loudmouth stirring trouble, really no different than Dante and Randall. And the movie is just them sitting by the porch, coming into contact with all the personalities in the neighborhood. It’s not much different than setting a story in a convenience store, where the characters have to stand by and come in contact with a revolving door of wacky characters. I’m pretty sure Ice Cube, who co-wrote the script, has no idea what Clerks is but I can’t say the same for director F. Gary Gray. Clerks had just become a Sundance favorite when Friday went into production and it’s very possible that Gray had watched it as someone aspiring to be a filmmaker. He was just a music video director up to this point, having done Ice Cube’s classic It Was a Good Day.

Regardless, while the movie is structured similarly to Clerks, that’s not what makes it good. It’s really the world building. The characters and neighborhood feel very real and relatable. It’s a movie that’s funny, not because of the situation the characters get into, but because of what those situations represent. It’s a movie you can say is funny “cause is true.”

Well. That is it for now.

Bye, Felicia.

STAYING ALIVE (1983)



Long before Mary Poppins returned with an underwhelming soundtrack, there was the sequel to Saturday Night Fever that replaced the Bee Gees with Frank Stallone. Actually, the Bee Gees ARE on the soundtrack but are inexplicably taking the backseat to Frankie. Even more bizarre, the movie is co-written, co-produced and directed by Sylvester Stallone. Even more earth shattering than that, you sit down to watch the sequel to Saturday Night Fever and realize, “holy fuck I’m watching a Sylvester Stallone movie.” Dracula recently talked shit about Stallone as a director in his Creed II review but that movie wishes it had Stallone’s personality and vision. The man has his trademarks. You get the awkward homoeroticism, the montages, the Frank Stallone’s, the relative cheering from within the crowd. People criticize this movie for being an odd sequel to Saturday Night Fever but how is this even a fucking sequel? It’s literally Rocky the Dancer..... and that’s what makes it hilariously entertaining. I’ll say it with no shame. I like this movie. PG Cooper, prove me wrong with a video essay.

Doomsday take notes for film club

In honor of President's Day, the making of "Dave":

www.theringer.com/movies/2019/2/18/18226332/dave-president-kevin-kline-ivan-reitman

PRINCE OF THE CITY (1981)



Sidney Lumet made some of cinema’s greatest works, but he also did a lot of garbage. Prince of the City might be Lumet at his most indulgently worst. It’s a “3-hour epic” about a cop exposing corruption in the police force. Cause, you know, there hasn’t been a gazillion films and TV shows with that exact same premise. We need to give this story the significance of a 3-hour runtime. Actually, to be fair, the length isn’t the issue. The movie is surprisingly not boring but it needs to be acknowledged to show Lumet’s overindulgence. What separates a good Lumet movie from a bad one is the script. He’s not the type of director that will elevate the script or overcome its faults. What you give him is what he’ll make.

In the case of Prince of the City the script has the tendency to over-explain itself. There’s something called “show don’t tell” which the screenplay doesn’t believe in and so the characters have A LOT of monologues. And, really, that’s not what you wanna give someone like Lumet cause he loves to direct actors as if they were in a play and so, surprise-surprise, the characters come across unrealistic and comical in what’s supposed to be a gritty crime drama. Add to that a 3-hour runtime and you’ll wanna roll your eyes.

Ya call that an essay?