Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie - 2012

"Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie" - 2012
Dir. by Tim Heidecker and Eric Wareheim - 1 hr. 33 min.

Official Red Band Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

I would think that any comedy duo/team who is making the leap from TV to feature films would watch "BASEketball" at least once before doing whatever it is that they will end up doing.  I don't mean that anyone should necessarily try to emulate that film, but there are reasons why that film is the least successful (artistically and financially) of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's careers.  Unfortunately, Tim Heidecker and Eric Wareheim make pretty much the exact same mistakes with "Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie," and end up with an even less-watchable film.

Tim and Eric play fictional versions of themselves here, and they've just torn through one billion of the Schlaaang Corporation's money making a film that ended up only being three minutes long.  Understandably, Tommy Schlaaang (Robert Loggia) is upset, and wants his money back.  Tim and Eric flee town after seeing a TV commercial offering the opportunity to earn a billion dollars back by turning a decrepit mall around.  If you've ever seen "Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!," you'd know that the plot isn't the entire story. Much of their humor is derived from awkwardness, whether it be in editing, acting, or deliberately poor production values.  That much hasn't changed.

The primary problem with this film (other than it not being particularly funny) is that there are no characters to connect with on any level.  Tim and Eric play dipshits (if you'll pardon my French), and not even shaggy dogs that you can like in spite of themselves.  They're just stupid, and you can tell they're being stupid on purpose, which is off-putting.  This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a film and a TV show (and in this case, a TV show with an 11-minute run time).  It's possible to get away with mining awkwardness and eighties production values for humor when a viewer only has to deal with it for eleven minutes: it's an insignificant investment of time, and there's not much at stake.  If a joke bombs, whatever, there's another show on in a couple of minutes.  But if a filmmaker is going to ask a viewer to sit through ninety minutes or more, having some way to connect with the characters involved is a must.  Funny jokes and weird characters aren't enough; if a viewer doesn't connect with the characters (and here, Tim and Eric deliberately avoid that at all costs), ninety minutes is an eternity.  If that reeks of a "formula," too bad.  Different means of presentation have different requirements.

But worse, this movie doesn't have a bunch of funny material.  Considering the comedians involved, that's nearly a crime.  It's not like anyone is really set up to shine, but Ray Wise does the best with his material out of everyone.  John C. Reilly plays a character called Taquito, but the only funny scene that he has is when he dies.  Okay, the bit where he eats unrefrigerated frozen taquitos is kind of funny, too.  But both Zach Galifinakis and Will Ferrell have WTF roles; they both seemed more concerned with being a little weird and creepy than anything else.  And I guess that brings me to the biggest point: not being funny in an ironic way isn't actually funny or ironic.  This film is just an overload of an attempt at that, but funny things are funny because you react to them, and smothering a film in eight layers of irony makes it very hard to have any kind of reaction at all.  It's something that can work in small doses, but a feature film isn't a small dose.  When you have a comedy film that isn't funny, that's not Andy Kaufman-esque irony, that's a failed comedy film.

All of these problems could have been at least mitigated had Tim and Eric just watched "BASEketball" first.  Though "BASEketball" did have some pretty good gags, it also featured lead characters that were difficult to connect with, and humor that is better in smaller doses than in large ones (incessant trash-talking).  Frankly, I was disappointed in this film; I had enjoyed their TV shows, but I don't see any particular reason in the material present that demanded a feature film be made from it.  I mean, can you make the very act of making a film ironic?  I suppose that's the meta question here, but the answer isn't very entertaining, and it's not going to hold your attention for very long.

1 / 5 - Streaming

The Hangover Part II - 2011

"The Hangover Part II" - 2011
Dir. by Todd Phillips - 1 hr. 42 min.

Official Trailer

Let's get this out of the way: "The Hangover Part II" is not quite as good as "The Hangover" is.  It's not a bad movie at all, it has much of what made the first installment great, but it's just not quite as good.  Part of the reason is likely that instead of watching a string of horrors unfold, a viewer is now expecting the horrific (in a funny way, as long as it's not happening to you) events to come.  There's more than enough here to keep you entertained and interested if you liked the first one, but since this is structurally extremely similar, the element of surprise is lost.

Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married in Thailand (and not to Heather Graham's character, who isn't in this film).  The rest of the Wolfpack are attending, and things quickly go south.  As a lot of the humor relies on surprises, it's not really fair to say much more than that.  If you saw "The Hangover," you know where it's headed anyways.  There are two fundamental changes in the sequel: the missing person is Stu's fiancée's little brother, and Bradley Cooper's character (Phil) turns into a raging asshole.  I don't remember Phil being quite that much of a dick (it seemed that previously, when the characters mistreated one another it was reacting poorly under substantial pressure), but Part II starts off nearly immediately with Phil turning into a fairly unlikeable character.  And I'm not talking about a charismatic, best friends messing with each other kind of asshole, but just a dick.

While this time around, you're no longer wondering whether things have bottomed out each time something awful happens to Stu, Phil, and Alan, "Part II" makes up for it by upping the ante each time.  Setting the movie in Bangkok ("Holla!  City of squalor!" says Chow, played by Ken Jeong) allows things to get pretty dark pretty quickly.  The fundamental mystery of where Teddy (the previously mentioned little brother) has disappeared to works well, keeping the Wolfpack moving and discovering just how bad their previous night had gotten, bit by bit.

Director Todd Phillips has a couple of classic comedies to his credit now ("Old School" and the original "The Hangover").  "Part II" isn't that good, but it's better than "Starsky & Hutch" or "Road Trip," and that's fine by me.  The best thing I can say about this movie is that if there was a third installment, I'd more than probably go see it, too.  Being able to maintain an audience along sequels is a tricky task, and I felt like it was successful at that.

3.5 / 5 - Theatre

Due Date - 2010

"Due Date" - 2010
Dir by Todd Phillips - 1 hr. 35 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

With comedies more than any other type of movie, I leave the theatre disappointed.  Maybe disappointed isn't the right word, more like underwhelmed.  Perhaps I'm continually overestimating the funniness of certain actors and directors, or perhaps it's just that no one hits it out of the park every single time at bat.  "Due Date" falls into that category.  Certainly, if someone were to tell you that Todd Phillips was going to direct a mismatched buddy film with Zach Galafinakis and Robert Downey, Jr. (fresh off "The Hangover"), you're likely going to have some expectations.

I keep finding myself having to back off of how bad I make this movie sound.  It's not a bad movie at all, perhaps a little uneven, but not a bad movie.  There are a number of laugh-out-loud scenes, the characters play fairly well off of one another, but it never coalesces into something more than the sum of it's parts.  I'll put it this way, if you see this movie, you'd probably have a good time.  But you're not going to tell people that it's as funny as "Old School" or "The Hangover" was.  Sure, those are pretty lofty goals, but if you've got those two movies under your belt (like Phillips does), pretty much every movie you make for the rest of your life are going to be judged on that scale.

I'm definitely not saying not to watch this.  I enjoyed myself throughout.  My warning is that it's probably not going to be quite as funny as you hope it will be, so lower your expectations and enjoy.

3 / 5 - Theatre