The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)

Director: Wes Anderson

A fun Wes Anderson flick, though one that still feels more bloated than his others.

As part of our little, incomplete return to the films of Wes Anderson, my wife and I decided to give The Life Aquatic our first watch in well over a decade. It follows the title character, Steve Zissou (Bill Murray), who has hit a fairly nasty late-in-life rut. Zissou is a Jacque Cousteau-like marine biologist/adventurer who was once highly renowned and respected. In recent years, though, his star has fallen in the eyes of the public. His vices and arrogance have caught up with him, and nearly every personal bridge has been burned, leaving Steve in a haze of self-pity and existential crisis. A sense of purpose is sparked, however, when Steve's longtime partner is killed by what he claims is an exotic, previously-unknown species of shark. This sets Steve on an Ahab-like quest to find and kill the beast. Joining him and his normal crew is newcomer Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson), a straightforward, earnest, Midwestern pilot who believes Steve to be his illegitimate father.

The Life Aquatic was fun to watch again, though the weaknesses that I observed when it came out are mostly still evident. There are plenty of hilarious moments, often little gags in the dialog or facial expressions, as one would expect from a movie featuring Bill Murray and other great actors like Cate Blanchett, Jeff Goldblum, Willem Dafoe, and Angelica Huston, among others. Having Murray play a weary, arrogant, dry narcissist on the high seas was bound to be funny, one way or another, and it is. Casting the greater tale within the notion of being a funny, quirky take on Moby Dick with a dysfunctional ship crew sets up a good deal of humor, too.

So what isn't it quite as memorable or funny as Anderson's other films? My feeling is that it simply tried to introduce a few too many character clashes and dynamics. There's the mystery of Steve's relationship with Ned. And Steve trying to maintain or repair his relationship with his wife. And Steve trying to impress and seduce a journalist who has joined his voyage. And Steve's rivalry with fellow celebrity marine biologist Alistair Hennessey. Then Steve has an entire side foray to save an "insurance bond stooge." And there's even a few other personal dramas thrown in here and there with members of his ship crew. It all just adds up to too much, resulting in a movie that feels too long, despite the film being a little under two hours. There were at least two moments in the third act that felt like good places to wrap up the movie, but it somehow kept going, resulting in a film that probably could have been a good 15 minutes shorter.

I think this image - widely used the promotional materials for the film - is a
perfect illustration of its main weakness. Too many characters stuffed into
a small space. Even with so much great acting talent, the movie would
have been better off leaving some of them back onshore.

A curious observation I made on this viewing was how this movie hinted at Anderson's interest in using stop-motion animation, which he playfully sprinkled into The Life Aquatic, usually in the underwater sequences. It's an early tease of his control of the form, which he would bring fully to bear in his later full-length animated films The Fantastic Mr. Fox and Isle of Dogs.

The Life Aquatic is still a funny movie, and my wife and I did enjoy it. But I still consider it Anderson's weakest movie, mostly because it was overstuffed with too great a variety of interpersonal tensions. This is an error in judgment that Anderson seemed to correct with his next film, the shorter, more focused The Darjeeling Limited, and all subsequent live-action films, none of which has been more than 99 minutes long. Still, it says something when the worst of a director's seven full-length, live-action films is still a pretty good one. 

The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

Director: Wes Anderson

The wife and I have found ourselves unintentionally revisiting Wes Anderson's film catalog. It started with watching The Darjeeling Limited a couple weeks back, then continued with Rushmore last week. Having enjoyed those two, we kept it up with his follow-up to that latter film, and enjoyed it plenty.

The Royal Tenenbaums uses an impressive ensemble cast to follow the Tenenbaum family, a New York City-based clan which includes Royal, the self-involved, insensitive father; Etheline, a loving mother, and three budding genius children: Chas, Margot, and Richie. While the Tenenbaum kids all seem to be headed for greatness in their respective fields of interest - finance, playwrighting, and tennis - the dysfunction within the family (mostly due to their father) eventually derails nearly everyone's chance at great success. We mostly follow the children a little over two decades after they were all between roughly eight and eleven years old and still showed limitless promise. At this point, Royal, now completely broke and desperate but no better a human being, concocts a scheme to work his way back into his wife and children's lives.

This is the Wes Anderson movie I know best, having watched it every few years since it came out, and I still think it's pretty great.

The Royal Tenenbaums was the first film of Wes Anderson's to expand to the large-group ensemble approach. After his smaller-scale (and smaller-budgeted) films Bottle Rocket and Rushmore, we now got a story that juggles no less than a half-dozen major characters and their bizarre and dysfunctional relationships with each other. If there is any primary character, it is the titular Royal, played hilariously by Gene Hackman. His gruff, unforgiving turn as the thoughtless, selfish, destructive patriarch of the Tenenbaum family sets and keeps much of the rest of the story in motion. It's not always easy - not even in comedy - to create a character who's mostly despicable, but whom you ultimately empathize with. At least a little bit, anyway.

But the movie is more than just Hackman as the unfit, previously-absentee father. The all-star cast all live up the reputations that had either previously created and/or have since maintained. Anjelica Huston is as good as she's ever been, which is saying something. No surprise there. But the younger players - Ben Stiller, Gwyneth Paltrow, Luke and Owen Wilson, Danny Glover, Bill Murray, and others - are inhabit their quirky and damaged characters splendidly.

In an attempt to bond, Royal brings his newly-acquainted
grandsons to a dog-fighting circle. Perfect example his
insanely misguided (but hilarious) attempts to reconnect with
a family whom he himself drove off with this type of thing.

This movie was also the one which I consider the first of what the movie-going world would come to know as "the Wes Anderson movie." While we saw it almost fully formed in Rushmore, it is with The Royal Tenenbaums that we get the hyper-detailed, meticulously-crafted, super vibrant visuals and ultra-sharp cinematography in each and every shot and movement. It's not to everyone's taste, as it shatters any illusion that you're watching reality, and it can have a cartoonish feel to it. But for those who appreciate an eye for visual details, it's hard not to be impressed. The impeccable quality has been a part of every single film - both live action and animated - that he's done since, and this was really the one which set his own bar.

All technical merits aside, the movie is still just plain funny. Hackman delivers Royal's brutally insensitive lines and needling to perfection. The Wilson brothers bring their penchant for playing zoned out, sensitive types fully into Eli Nash and Richie Tenenbaum. The rest of the cast is just as good, and they're all given plenty of hilariously odd situations that actually don't seem too far off the detached, near-aristocratic pursuits of New York elite types. As with nearly every Anderson movie, it does take a brief, dark turn that's difficult to anticipate, but the proceedings never get overly bleak. There is heart and dysfunction aplenty, but this is, overall, a comedy.

I still rank this one among my favorite Wes Anderson films. I've generally liked them all to varying degrees, but The Royal Tenenbaums is in my top two or three. Along with Rushmore, it's the Anderson movie I would recommend to someone who hasn't seen any of his. From either one of those, you'll know if he's to your liking. 

Rushmore (1998)

Director: Wes Anderson

After re-watching and enjoying The Darjeeling Limited, the wife and I decided to go back to an earlier Anderson movie which neither of us had seen in quite some time: Rushmore, Anderson's second full-length feature and his first with a significant budget.

This one holds up really well, and my wife and I actually picked up on things which we didn't remember catching on previous viewings (which were probably close to a decade ago).

The story follows Max Fisher, a 15-year old student at the Rushmore Academy, an elite prep school where Max excels in creating, running, and joining countless extracurricular clubs while failing miserably at anything academic. He falls in love with Ms. Cross, an attractive, young new teacher at Rushmore, but he hits a serious wall when confronted with the realities of their age differences and with a "rivalry" for her affections in the form of Herman Bloom (Bill Murray). Bloom is a self-made man who is miserable with his family life, but finds some rejuvenation with Ms. Cross. A jilted Max begins a series of retaliations against Bloom that soon spiral out of control, resulting in some rather serious consequences.

By now, just about anyone interested in films knows Wes Anderson's entire style. It is a very meticulously-crafted and curated visual style, coupled with a very dry, quirky sensibility in terms of character and dialogue. Stories often center on one or more people, young and old, who are in privileged economic positions but who deal with severe family dysfunction. Rushmore features some of those elements, though in a relatively grounded story. Max Fisher certainly fits the archetypal, precocious young person who is in plenty of Anderson's movies. In certain ways, he's way ahead of his peers, even if he's woefully immature in other ways. As usual with young people in Anderson's movies, a lot of the humor comes from just how dead seriously the young people take themselves.

This touches on one thing that both my wife and I realized upon this recent viewing: that for the first two acts of this movie, Max Fisher is an absolute monster. On earlier viewings, for whatever reason, I found him more charming and misunderstood, even as he was actively and aggressively seeking to destroy other people's lives. This time, though, I felt that I was truly seeing the emergence of a psychopath. Fortunately, the movie really is about Max eventually understanding the damage that he's done, atoning, and starting to move beyond the wildly egocentric stage of his life.

Along with 1994's Ed Wood, this was one of Murray's earliest
forays into quirky, very well-drafted "independent" type
comedies. The man was all but made for these roles.

The humor holds up really well, and is quite timeless. Anderson has never been one to rely on pop culture references, and it takes some fairly sharp writing to get dry humor to hit as well as he always has. That said, his is a particular brand of humor which isn't necessarily for everyone. I remember when I first saw Rushmore over two decades ago that I didn't completely "get it," though I found it amusing. Only after a few more viewings over the succeeding years did I start to really appreciate the more understated gags and the style, to go along with the broader humor.

Rushmore really is a great starting place for someone who's never seen a Wes Anderson movie but is curious. It's probably his most grounded, accessible work, aside from his first film Bottle Rocket, but the overall production value is far higher in this sophomore effort. Anderson's later movies are mostly bigger, zanier, and more cartoonish in ways, which may or may not be to some people's liking. Start here, then check out The Royal Tannenbaums. That should be a good gauge for whether you're a "Wes Anderson" person or not. 

The Darjeeling Limited (2007)

Director: Wes Anderson

An enjoyable movie that fits right into the same quirky niche that Wes Anderson has carved out for himself in the world of cinema.

The Darjeeling Limited follows three American brothers - Francis, Peter, and Jack - as they reunite and attempt to bond in India, one year after their father's death. The trip is the brainchild of the eldest brother, Francis (Owen Wilson), whose domineering "big brother" nature is clearly resented by Peter (Adrien Brody) and Jack (Jason Schwartzman). Each of the three carries around his own dysfunction, making for rather chaotic proceedings any time the three of them are together. This is especially trying since Francis's plan is that they spend plenty of time on the title vehicle, a somewhat cramped train that crosses the Indian countryside while Francis hopes to put the three of them back in contact with their estranged mother (Anjelica Huston).

If you're familiar with Wes Anderson's films, then this one would come as no real surprise to you. It bears nearly every hallmark of his live-action films (his animated ones, too, in some respects). Members of a privileged, dysfunctional family try to work out issues that have plagued them for their entire lives. They struggle. Something rather dark and violent happens. They work through things and find an imperfect but more tranquil place for themselves in each others' lives. And it's all presented in a meticulously-crafted and framed, dazzlingly colorful fashion. If you've seen one Wes Anderson movie, you'll recognize the style immediately. You'll probably also know whether you like it or not. The Darjeeling Limited isn't going to change your mind about that.

All that said, I've always liked Anderson' movies, to one degree or another. I remember watching Rushmore a couple of years after it came out, and while I can't say I fully appreciated it, I dug the quirky humor. The Royal Tannenbaums really got me, though, as I thought it was great. Since then, I've been sure to check out everything Anderson does, with slightly mixed results. The Darjeeling Limited is a solid offering from him, but not one I consider among his very best. If there's one thing that does set it slightly apart from his others, it's that he abandons his typically larger cast and focuses on the three main characters for nearly the entire film. Yes, there are secondary characters, sometimes played by famous actors, but it's mostly the three brothers and their fumbling awkwardness. It gives the movie, which is a tidy 91 minutes, an even more streamlined feel than some of this other movies.

Peter, as he inexplicably decides to buy a highly venemous
cobra. This is just one example of how good decision-making
is not the forte of any of the three brothers.

The performances are strong, with Owen Wilson playing the instinctively but unintentionally dominating eldest brother, and Brody and Schwarzman dryly seething at getting trapped within their own three-way sibling dynamics. We also get several faces familiar to Anderson's movies - brief appearances by Bill Murray, Anjelica Huston, and a few others, all of whom execute their roles well.

There is still the element common to all of Anderson's earlier films - that the characters are all wealthy, self-absorbed, damaged white folks. And there is even a slightly cringe-worthy "what we learned from the brown natives" vibe in the resolution in the third act. But it isn't wildly overdone, so it hardly spoils anything.

The Darjeeling Limited tends not to be mentioned as among Anderson's best-known or strongest efforts, but it's not because it's a bad movie by any means. Rather, I think it's simply because it's more limited in scope and doesn't have quite as tidy a resolution as some of his other movies. It's still highly enjoyable, though, and one that fans of his better-known movies should try out, if they haven't already.

New-ish Releases: Late Night (2019); The Dead Don't Die (2019)

Late Night (2019)

Director: Nisha Ganatra

A solid comedy with a strong cast, even if it is one that is fairly predictable.

Emma Thompson plays Katherine Newbury, a late night talk show host who, while an icon of immense achievement, has seen her popularity and relevance fade for about a decade. When word comes down that her show will be cancelled after the current season, Newbury and her all-male writing staff go scrambling for solutions. Newbury's knee-jerk is to hire a female writer, quickly tapping Molly Patel (Mindy Kaling), a motivated and aspiring but vastly inexperienced young woman who has been working in a factory. Despite her lack of writing chops, Patel has enough new ideas to inject a bit of life into Newbury's late show.

Late Night is a decent enough dramedy, even if it doesn't offer many surprises in terms of overall plot, character development, or interpersonal dynamics. It does, however, offer the requisite amount of laughs, which should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the charming Kaling and the immensely versatile Thompson. These two, along with nearly all of the supporting cast, wring the most from the script (written by Kaling) - a script which has some good comic moments but also has its share of somewhat flat or predictable gags.

The overall themes are what one might expect, with the primary focus being on empowering women. Fortunately, this element is never too heavy-handed, despite it clearly being a subject that Kaling wanted to address. There are a few secondary stories, such as the obligatory slow-burn love interest tales (which are actually done well) and a marital strife tale involving Newbury and her terminally ill husband (John Lithgow)  that never fully materializes completely.

I don't know that I'll ever feel the urge to watch this movie again, but it was fun enough. Fans of Thompson or Kaling will enjoy themselves, even if this is hardly a life-changing work of cinema.

The Dead Don't Die (2019)

Director: Jim Jarmusch

Rather disappointing, but not a completely unexpected letdown.

As a fan of Jim Jarmusch, it was very easy to get excited about the prospect of a comedy zombie movie starring Bill Murray, Adam Driver, Tilda Swinton, and a slew of other great actors. Jarmusch has written and directed some wonderfully unique and stylish films which I absolutely love, but he's also made a few which did not resonate with me at all. And when I saw the rather lukewarm reviews pour in, I wasn't stunned that The Dead Don't Die fell far short of what I consider his very best films.

The story is set in the fictional town of Centerville, where local sheriff Cliff Robertson (Bill Murray) and his two deputies Ronnie and Mindy (Adam Driver and Chloe Sevigny) start seeing bizarre murders and other grisly behavior in their otherwise sleepy town. As they try to deal with the increasing death toll, it becomes clear that the earth is being overrun by a global rise of zombies. The three officers try to deal with the horror the best that three easy-going, small-town cops can.

I'll give Jarmusch credit for taking some big, off-beat swings in this movie. Attempting to present a zombie apocalypse in such a slow, lazy way is certainly a different approach. And it's actually charming in moments. But there are times when is really just drags with overly long, repetitive gags and just a tad too little happening at certain moments. There's also the character of Zelda Winston (Tilda Swinton), the oddball mortician in town whose little tale begins as highly intriguing and then ends in a turn so bizarre as to feel like a cop out.

At the other end of the creative spectrum is Jarmusch's unispired choice to have Adam Driver's character go completely "meta" by making references to the "theme song" and the "script" of the movie. Such things were funny back when they were fresh - many decades ago - but it ceased being funny long ago. Maybe if Jarmusch had done something novel with the gag, it would have worked better, but he didn't do anything with the idea. It was one of several elements that hinted at bigger, funnier, and more creative developments which never emerge.

It's obvious that I was underwhelmed by this movie. Still, it had some laughs, and it never takes itself very seriously. That helps, to be sure, even if it doesn't much redeem the film. Fans of any of the actors or of zombie flicks will certainly find a few things to like about it. Just don't expect any consistency or anything particularly ground-breaking here. I still love Jarmusch, but this won't go down as one of my favorites of his. 

Retro Trio: A Fish Called Wanda (1988); The Man Who Knew Too Little (1997); Killing Them Softly (2012)

A Fish Called Wanda (1988)

Director: Charles Chrichton & John Cleese

A 1980s classic comedy that still has it.

I watched this movie plenty of times as a kid, but it had been at least 10 years since I last saw it. Though there are a few dated elements, in terms of the visuals, the dash of sappiness, and even a bit of the acting, A Fish Called Wanda is still a brilliant blend of British and U.S. humor.

For those who may not have seen it, the story mostly follows Wanda Gershwitz (Jamie Lee Curtis), a con woman who uses her beauty and wiles to horn in on a bank heist, with the intention of stealing the prized diamonds from the primary thieves. Using sex and emotional manipulation, she coldly plays every man involved - the mastermind George, the weapons man Otto (Kevin Kline), the stuttering henchman Ken (Michael Palin), and the repressed and unwitting lawyer Archie (John Cleese).

What allows the movie to stand the test of time rests on the script and the performances. The interactions between the more liberal and maverick Americans - Wanda and Otto - and their British cohorts are hilarious and eminently quotable. The standout scenes are typically between Otto and any of the English characters, whom he despises out of his own small-minded xenophobia and latent inferiority complex. Otto's supremely "ugly American" personifies every laughably obnoxious trait of U.S. travellers that has been the butt of jokes for decades, right up to the present.

Otto may not have been as memorable had it not been for an Academy Award-winning performance by Kevin Kline, which is a rare feat for a comedy film, but completely worthy. He often makes the movie, and his stand-offs with John Cleese's barrister Archie Leach and Michael Palin's Ken are perfection.

Great movie that is still great 25 years later, and will likely be great for decades to come.

The Man Who Knew Too Little (1997)

Director: Jon Amiel

A pretty fun, if not outstanding, little comedy.

I had never seen this one before, and I must admit that I could see why it was never hailed as a "great" comedy, despite having a great cast. The movie is a spoof on the spy thriller genre, following goofy American tourist Wallace Ritchie (Bill Murray) who goes to London and is unwittingly pulled into a plot between English and Russian forces to resurrect the Cold War status quo. Ritchie, however, is sucked into the entire affair, believing that he is the center of a popular television show on which the central "actor" is an average person who must play along with the professional actors around him, ad libbing along the way.

This premise isn't a bad one, as far as spoofs go, though the political elements do seem a few years too late for a film made in 1997. Even still, there was plenty of fodder for better political satire which went unused. That aside, there are plenty of solid setups for the comedic misunderstandings that drive the movie.

Instead of focusing more on the political humor, the film focused almost solely on its star, and one could do far worse than Bill Murray. Even when the dialogue or set-ups fall flat, Murray can carry a scene or an exchange with his hilarious deliveries, reactions, and physical comedy. It's easy to forget, given Murray's strengths with extremely dry and deadpan humor, that he can act the oblivious fool extremely well.

As a whole, though, the humor and goofiness wore thin by the third act. Despite being an obvious parody, the silliness level ramped up a little too high to remain effective. The grand finale scene consists of an overly long dance routine that borders on feeling interminable. And instead of leaving well enough alone and having Wally go on his merry way, we're left with him being recruited by the C.I.A. It was a bit too juvenile for my liking.

Had the script been a bit more clever and abandoned the more slapstick elements, this movie could very well have been a classic. As it is, it offers a few laughs, but doesn't warrant multiple viewings for me.

The social commentary is clumsy, but it
is curious enough to provoke thought.

Killing Them Softly (2012)

Director: Andrew Dominik

I was disappointed, but not necessarily because the movie is bad.

Killing Them Softly was released in 2012 and had a short and quiet run in theaters, despite solid critical acclaim. By the time of its video release, it had attained status as an "underrated film" and "sleeper pick" by critics in many quarters. With all of this "in the know" hype, I had very high hopes. The movie is quite good, but not without its flaws.

I will admit that the movie is fairly original, in terms of its grittiness and willingness to look at the more unglamorous aspects of criminality. The story takes place in a horribly bleak part of Boston, where a couple of dim, low rent street guys rob a high stakes poker game which includes members of the local mob. This sets off a chaotic attempt to assess blame and levy punishment, with noted hitman Jackie Cogan (Brad Pitt) brought in to sort the entire mess out.

The novelty of the story is that it does look at the disorganization and brutality of "organized" crime. The characters come off as extremely authentic, with all of their weaknesses on full display. Whether it's simple base greed, lust, or substance addiction, a viewer gets the sense that the grim and nasty picture painted for us is far closer to the reality than the more palatable portraits given us by more mainstream gangster movies. Instead of the ultra-slick, hyper-intelligent criminals, we see the sad, flawed, and ultimately doomed thugs and lowlifes who stand no real chance at getting what they want. Easily the most poised character is Jackie, who spends far more energy battling his disgust for the stupidity and indecision around him than on actually cleaning up the various messes created by foolish thugs and Jackie's waffling employers.

Jackie spends an awful lot of time in this kind of situation -
explaining a lot of harsh realities to dim or weak wanna-be
criminals. They provide much of the movie's power.

As far as the cleaning up of those messes, they do provide some excellent on-screen suspense and power. There are more than a few scenes that can effectively stun you with their impact. Unfortunately, there are also a few plot lines and scenes that seem to drag endlessly. The main one is the entire character Mickey, played by James Gandolfini in one of his final roles before his death. Mickey is an aging hitman who Jackie brings in to help him, but it soon becomes apparent that Mickey is a broken shell of what he once was. The point of Mickey's descent, though, is belabored so much that it is taxing to watch, and it almost resulted in my completely checking out of the film. Blessedly, it does end, and the main story picks back up in the movie's final 20 minutes.

A greater enigma hanging over the entire movie is the completely unsubtle social commentary. Right from the jump, we see dashes of political posters with Obama and Romney on them, in the throes of the 2008 presidential race. The blatantly obvious message is that the United States is in a state of free-for-all chaos, with our little crime story meant as a microcosm of the entire quagmire. It's not a terrible suggestion, but it could have been handled with far more deftness. It does, however, set up an absolutely classic final line to the movie, which may be one of the most memorable in all of crime cinema.

Killing Them Softly is, despite its weaknesses, a nice addition to the genre of crime films. It does stand apart from most of its ilk, and the performances are more than strong enough to carry a viewer through it. Definitely recommended to any fan of gangster movies. 

Retro Trio: Better Off Dead (1985); Kingpin (1996); Tristram Shandy (2005)

Better Off Dead... (1985)

One of the many classic scenes which, though having nothing
to do with the plot, speak to the silly fun of the entire film.

Director: "Savage" Steve Holland

At this point, I'll just assume that you've all seen this movie. If you haven't, it's probably because you're either under 25 or over 75 years old.

For those of my generation who haven't watched the movie in a long while, you may be wondering if it's still funny. Unequivocally, the answer is, "Yes." Nearly every bizarre segment and skewed sketch in this absurdist take on teen angst is still hilarious. There are a few scenes that are dated, such as the stop-motion hamburger "Van Halen" segment, but these are very few and far between. The vast majority of the movie holds up extremely well.

The key element to why this movie works is just how deadpan everyone is, most obviously John Cusack as the heartbroken and suicidal protagonist. But we should not discount the many other denizens of director Steve Holland's bizarre world, nor should we overlook just how effective their own dry approach to everything is. One need look no further than Lane Meyers's father, played by David Ogden Stiers. Stiers's stone-faced delivery of his lines had me rolling just as hard one week ago as they did two decades ago.

There are so many quirky little things in the movie that I hadn't thought of in long time, such as how enraptured the math class students are. Or the street-racing, Japanese brothers and adversaries of Lane. Or the basketball team members who are caricatured ogres. This is all great stuff, and the result of a fertile comic mind. 

It's always great to see that a key movie from one's childhood still had the goods. 

Kingpin (1996)

Director: Bobby & Peter Farrelly

I feel Kingpin to be the Farrelly Brothers' oft-forgotten masterpiece. Their highest grossing and probably best-known film is There's Something About Mary. Their first major film, Dumb and Dumber is a classic of idiotic comedy. I love the latter, and thought the former was funny but overrated. Kingpin, somehow, doesn't seem to register with nearly as many people, though, and I'm not really sure why. It's hilarious.

An early meeting between Big Ern and Roy. In this 2-minute scene, Murray
fires off no fewer than a half dozen classic lines and gags as he casually
denegrates everyone who gets within arm's length of him.

It boils down to two things: the writing and the cast. Curiously, it is one of the very few movies directed by the Farrellys that they didn't write themselves. Instead, it was written by a couple of veteran 1980s sitcom writers, Bobby Fanaro and Mort Nathan, who wrote for Benson and The Golden Girls. Knowing this, you might not expect the raunchy, sly, biting humor of Kingpin, but it's there in all its glory. There's a wealth of fantastically quotable lines throughout, and there's more than a few great dialectic and visual nods to classic films like The Natural, The Hustler, The Color of Money, The Graduate, and more. The entire world of Kingpin is a skewed alternate reality in which bowling is wildly popular, so there's plenty of fodder for spoofing athletics.

The cast is perfect. Woody Harrelson plays naive bowling prodigy-turned alcoholic degenerate Roy Munson, who incurs the wrath of veteran bowling champion Ernie "Big Ern" McCracken by daring to actually beat him. Big Ern is played by a Bill Murray at the absolute top of his comedy game. He's deadpan. He's ruthless. He's a womanizing, supremely arrogant dirtbag who lures Munson into hustling the wrong kinds of gamblers and having his bowling hand cut off. That's right. Harrelson plays a one-handed bowler the rest of the way, leading right up to his revenge showdown with Big Ern 17 years later. If you don't see the comedy in that, then this movie isn't for you.

Kingpin is another movie that's easy to recommend giving a shot. Just like Bad Santa, you can pick up the tone and humor within the first 10 minutes, and you can tell whether you'll like it or not. Unlike a lot of comedies, it doesn't lose steam at any point, and the last 15 minutes are just as funny as the first. 

Coogan's passive annoyance in the foreground is a steady
theme when he's paired up with the loquoacious Brydon.

Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story (2005)

Director: Michael Winterbottom

I watched this for the same reason probably anybody would go back and watch it - I loved The Trip and The Trip to Italy. The semi-scripted, ad lib chemistry between comedians Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon is phenomenal, especially to those who like rapid-fire British humor.

Tristram Shandy is funny, and it's a good film, but I didn't find it as consistently funny as the "Trip" duology.

This movie is a different animal, in nearly every way. It is very much in the vein as films like Day for Night  and Federico Fellini's 8 1/2 - two films about making a film. In the case of Tristram, it focuses most on the star actor (Coogan, in this case) trying to exert his star status as the title character of a famously unadaptable work of classic English literature. The dryer forms of humor come from Coogan's passive aggressive attempts to belittle his co-stars, no one moreso than the affable Rob Brydon.  Of course, Coogan is made to look a fool often enough, whether by his own arrogance or by the wild demands of the Tristram script. 

Those looking for the great back-and-forth between Coogan and Brydon in the Trip movies might be a bit disappointed. While they have several scenes together, Brydon is not nearly as prominent as Coogan, whose larger celebrity is the target for humor here. The overarching theme is the madness of moviemaking, with its writes and rewrites, casting and recasting, the short-lived passions that flair up between crew members, the egos, and plenty more. From that perspective, a cinephile like myself appreciates these peaks behind the curtain of movie show business. Those who are less interested are likely to find the film a bit dull.