Idiot Boxing: Preacher, season 4 (2019)

And so the tale of the Preacher, adapted from the 1990s comic book to which I had almost religious devotion, comes to a close. For me, it ended about the same way it began - compelling enough and with appropriate respect for the source material, but never quite living up to its potential.

This fourth and final season brings everything to its insane conclusion. Jesse Custer has been tapped and trapped into being the world's Messiah by the ultra-powerful, mostly secretive organization The Grail. The Grail is now headed by the cold, psychotic, and vengeance-obsessed Herr Starr. After being jilted by Custer, Starr brokers a truce between a resurrected duo of Adolf Hitler and Jesus of Nazareth (yes, you read that right). While this ultimate odd couple tries to figure out how to jump-start the Apocalypse in order to save and remold the world into The Grail's vision, Jesse dies and is offered a seat as the new God, to replace the deity who has long since abandoned his post as omniscient overseer of the universe. Tulip and Cassidy, Jesse's ex-girlfriend and his best friend, stay involved and on the run from the long reach of The Grail, while also trying to foil their planned Apocalypse.

The finale season doesn't really offer anything new or drastically different from the first three seasons, in terms of tone or direction. It's wildly irreverent, packed with cartoonish ultra-violence, and is rather difficult to anticipate, even for those of us who know the source materials very well. The casting is spot-on, the acting is really strong, and the anything-goes attitude and tone are faithfully maintained right through the entire season.

For its strengths, though, this series underwhelmed me. So much so that working through the final two seasons felt like more of an obligation than something I looked forward to. This is probably why it took me a year to finally get through the final season, going back to it on and off.

I've explained the elements which have bothered me about the show in my earlier posts reviewing seasons one, two, and three. Those issues came into even sharper relief in this final season. The original comic, written by Garth Ennis, was always a wild ride, but it was one that did have its own logic. Even in terms of what some of the immensely powerful characters could or could not do, it maintained a nice amount of internal consistency. The same could not be said of the TV show. It was almost never clear exactly what laws or rules governed the fantastic powers that characters like Genesis, Cassidy, The Saint of Killers, the angels, the demons, or even God. I've always found that tales like this - which rely on their own mythology - are best when that mythology has been carefully considered and has a certain cohesion. Without it, continuity and any sense that you can get a grip on the world is weakened. This was a problem with the TV adaptation of Preacher for me.

Yes, ladies and gentelmen. That is, indeed, Der Fuhrer
working shoulder-to-shoulder with the Lord and Savior, Jesus
of Nazareth. And if this doesn't give you some sense of the
irreverence of this show, then maybe the fistfight they get
into later will make it more abundantly clear.

Related to this is the "anything goes" attitude being taken too far, at the cost of an organic narrative much of the time. I always had the feeling that the writers were a bit more interested in shocking us with irreverent situations and over-the-top actions sequences than in building meaningful, plausible motivations for the characters' actions and interactions with each other. As it is, the approach feels much more like a "throw them all in a blender and let crazy stuff happen - we'll figure out the exact motivations later." This is less effective that Ennis's original story, which - though having a few digressions here or there - always had a very clear sense of where it was going, exactly what was driving the main characters, and precisely where they would end up.

Again, I give the TV show runners, Sam Catlin, Evan Goldberg, and Seth Rogan, plenty of credit for trying their best to bring this story to TV life. They very clearly are fans of the source material and respected it a ton. And I was glad to see that they had the guts to take the story and characters into directions different from the comic, rather than just give a live-action rendering of Ennis's exact tale. That's always a gamble, especially with material that had such a devoted fanbase. For me, though, the end result was something that fell just a bit short of being satisfying.

In looking over the general critical and fan reception, I may be in the minority on this one. Looking at scores on Metacritic, the show received mostly positive reviews, all around. This suggests that someone looking for a pretty crazy, no-hold-barred, horror fantasy TV show may want to give this one a shot. Believe me - you'll be able to tell within the first ten minutes whether it's your bag or not. 

New Release: Long Shot (2019)

Director: Jonathan Levine

A flawed but funny comedy very much in keeping with Seth Rogen's comedy film career trajectory.

Long Shot tells the story of Secretary of State Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) – a bright and rising political star whose intelligence, political savvy, and photogenic image all suggest that she is poised to take the next great step into the presidency. During a charity dinner, Field comes across Fred Flarsky (Rogen), whom Field grew up around and even babysat for a time when she was in high school and Flarsky was in junior high. Flarsky has since become a highly independent journalist with a strong liberal bent, and one who has just quit his job at a small media outlet because it has been bought out by a massive, right-leaning media conglomerate. After their awkward reunion, Field brings Flarsky onto her team as a speech writer. The two, as different as they are in diplomacy and polish, start to reconnect and grow closer as they travel the world and try to put Field in a position to raise her political stock.

The movie is certainly entertaining enough. Like nearly every other Seth Rogen movie I’ve seen, he almost can’t help but be funny. He has always had a knack for selecting writers with whom he works well, and Long Shot has more than a few gags and lines that had me laughing out loud. It helps that the supporting cast all keep up admirably. Theron once again shows off her comic chops, though she does mostly play the "straight woman" to Rogen's typically goofy character. And others like O’Shea Jackson as Flarsky’s best friend and June Diane Raphael as Fields’s primary strategist only enhance the humor.

O'Shea Jackson Jr., left, as Flarsky's best friend, Lance.
Jackson's is one of several excellent supporting performances
that leave you wanting to see a bit more of him.

The story itself is fun enough, though lacking in a completely consistent tone. The humor is often fairly grounded, though it will take little flights into the more fantastic at times. This would normally be fine, but when one of the themes of the movie is the very real battle for women to be taken seriously and granted political power for more than just their looks, then sillier humor can feel a bit out of place. It still made me laugh, but it also dilutes what could have been a deeper message. Related is the rather obvious trope of the “dumpy, scruffy, average-looking guy hooks up with insanely beautiful woman” that is at the center of the movie. At first glance, this can be a bit off-putting. Once I thought about it, though, I actually appreciate it as a gender-reversal of sorts. In this movie, the male really has none of the obvious power here. Charlotte Field is more powerful, more beautiful, and at least as intelligent as the disheveled but principled Flarsky. For the most part, their established emotional connection feels organic enough without the woman serving the purpose of filling a powerful man’s needs. Quite the opposite – Flarsky is arguably there to fill one of the few needs that the immensely-successful Fields has – the need to rediscover what she truly loves in life, after so many years playing the game of optics in the high-stakes world of global politics.

I will offer the brief caveat that the humor in the movie can run into the raunchier end of things at times, which is par for the course in a Seth Rogen-headed film. The language is the primary source, but there are a handful of sex and body function gags in there, as well. I’m personally not bothered by such things, but it bears mentioning for those who may be put off by them.

My basic litmus test of a comedy is whether I would watch it again. With Long Shot, my answer is yes. It might not be right away, but it’s a fun rom-com that I can easily see my wife and I surfing across at night and staying to get some good laughs, along with a dash of depth.

New Release: The Interview (2014)

Director: Evan Goldberg

If you know Seth Rogan and James Franco (and Evan Goldberg-directed) movies, then you'll have a good idea of what to expect from The Interview. For my part, I generally find these guys' films entertaining, if not exactly the works of comic genius. This latest, highly publicized effort of theirs fits right into their canon.

Either from the previews or the massive coverage received after the hacks and threats from North Korea, you probably know the tale. James Franco plays Dave Skylark, a shallow and self-absorbed egotist of good humor who hosts a wildly popular, sensational late night "news" show. He and his producer, played by Seth Rogan, are recruited by the CIA to assassinate Kim Jong-Un, once it is discovered that Kim has agreed to an interview with Skylark, whom the young dictator loves.

The comedy is as consistent and reliable as other Rogan/Franco flicks, which is to say, not completely. The humor is often very blue, and the rapid-fire, usually deadpan deliveries and responses to the insanity that unfolds are plenty of fun. Yes, the characters are ridiculous, but so is the entire premise of the movie. Once you realize that this is a silly parody of an assassination fantasy, then you'll stop rolling your eyes and have some solid laughs.

The writers probably overshot the mark a bit by making Dave
Skylark a bit douchier than they might have intended. 

The movie's not without its issues, though. For one, I found James Franco's Skylark character just a hair overdone at times. Clearly, he's meant to be a caricature of all flashy, narcissistic, pandering TV talk show personalities. But they make him essentially too dumb to live. It's almost as if Rogan and Franco are incapable of writing a more subtle idiot, so Skylark's continual over-the-top obliviousness can wear on you.

The bigger problem is the violence. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against movie violence, per se (I mean, I was weaned on the mucle action flicks of the 1980s, after all). And I actually find exagerrated violence hilarious, when done properly. What is abundantly clear to me, after seeing Pineapple Express, This is the End and now The Interview (all directed by Evan Goldberg) is that these guys have no idea how to make violence funny. This leads me to this slight aside:

John Cleese once explained how, when Monty Python first screened an early shooting of the famous and hilariously bloody "bridge knight" scene in Holy Grail, they had used a modeest, almost realistic, amount of blood in the scene. Well, the test audience was horrified, and not a soul laughed. However, when the troupe added massive amounts more blood, the audiences thought the scene hysterical.

As this still indicates, you can expect plenty of penis and
testicle jokes in this one. This should surprise none who have
seen these guys' other movies. 

Therein lies the key - to make violence funny, you have to completely overdo it. Franco and Rogan haven't figured this out. The violence in The Interview is disturbingly graphic and realistic. Fingers are bitten off. A man dies a horribly gruesome death by poison. A soldier gets crushed by a tank. Multiple people get shot to death. There is plenty more, and all of it in uncomfortably graphic detail, which begs the question, "How many people actually find this comic?" I really don't. It's not that is repulses me; but it certainly doesn't amuse me, either. Fortunately, none of this really erupts until the last 30 minutes or so of the movie, making the rest of it entertaining enough.

Ultimately, I have to laud the boys for the guts to make a film about a sitting dictator known for eratic and hyperbolic responses to insult. The whole thing comes off pretty well, and it does take a stab at some social commentary, even if it is barely half-baked. The movie ended up getting far more press than it deserved, thanks to the hyper-sensitive target of their comedic aim. Without the hoopla, it is simply another decent, though hardly "classic," addition to their comedy film resumes. 

New(ish) Release: Neighbors (2014)

Director: Nicholas Stoller

A pretty amusing flick, with no tremendous surprises for those who know Seth Rogan.

Neighbors is about a late twenty-something couple, Max and Kelly (Rogan and Rose Byrne) who are a few months into their first parenthood. They've just moved into a typically mellow suburban neighborhood, where they plan to begin the "adult" phase of their lives while not admitting to "getting old." Soon, the house next door is sold to a full-on, Animal House-style fraternity. The frat is headed by the impossibly handsome and charismatic Teddy (Zac Efron), who quickly begins to oversee bacchanalian parties of epic scale and scope right next to Max and Kelly and their infant daughter. What commences is an ever-escalating war of one-upmanship and sabotage between the neighbors.

If you've seen anything with Seth Rogan in it in the last decade, you have a solid idea of what to expect. There's some excellent blue humor, rapid-fire extemporaneous exchanges, and use of subject matter that has often been seen as taboo (having sex in front of your infant, breast feeding, and drug use, to name a few). The shift here for Rogan is one that is obvious and almost necessary for him as an actor, as well as a character - the conflicting desire for and fear of leaving behind the irresponsible days of his youth. For the most part, he still plays the immature, foul-mouthed, yet affable teddy bear that he's always played, and he continues to do it well.

While other female characters have had some great roles in
Seth Rogen films, Rose Byrne as Kelly might be the first one
who truly stands on equal footing with the dudes in every way. 

Probably the most singular thing about Neighbors is that the the character of Kelly is just as immature, foul-mouthed, and vicious as her husband. In fact, this idea is worked into one dialogue about how there should only be one "dumb husband" (or "Kevin James," as they call it) in a marriage. I loved this idea since the tired formula of dumb, infantile husband + sexy, responsible, yet tolerant wife is so old that is became offensive long ago. It's about time that the female character enjoy the freedom of being hilariously selfish.

The other selling point of Neighbors is what we've always gotten from Rogen's films, especially those directed by Judd Apatow - the heart. Even going all the way back to Superbad and every film since then, the theme of the endearing male friendship has run throughout. And it's not so dull that I can refer to it by the term "bromance" (another concept that's explored in Neighbors), but there is a satisfying sense of reconciliation at various points in the story.

And it's that reconciliation that sets Rogen's films apart from their predecessors. Instead of following the classic formula of '70s and '80s comedy, with the dichotomy of "good" and "evil" being crystal clear, these films ultimately just want people to get along. Sure, it's a tad sentimental, but not overly so. If it were, I wouldn't keep going to see each of Rogen's new films and enjoying each one, to some degree or another.