John Hughes: The Man Who Made High School a Little Less Miserable Dies at 59

It's been a strange summer. Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, Karl Malden, and Walter Cronkite all succumbed to long, terminal illnesses. Meanwhile, Michael Jackson and Billy Mays both died unexpectedly. Today, another great was lost unexpectedly. John Hughes, the renowned director of such 80s classics as "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," "The Breakfast Club," "Weird Science," and "Sixteen Candles," died today of a heart attack. He was 59.

Nearly every major comedy director today looking to make a high school film will tell you that they're inspiration is John Hughes. Others might tell you otherwise, but what they're really trying to do is recreate what John Hughes did to comedy in the 1980s. 

I'm sad to say I've only seen two Hughes films; both however, are nothing short of classics. I first watched "Ferris Bueller" in fifth grade. Ferris was always someone I wish I could be. With that movie, Hughes managed to obtain great screwball comedy as well as one of the greatest lines in movie history: "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it." Years later, and that's still the one quote most people are putting into their senior high school yearbooks.

I watched "The Breakfast Club" in health class. Yes, "The Breakfast Club" captures high school so well that even teachers seem to think it's good enough to be shown in school. Hughes did a mastery job with "The Breakfast Club" by making it a film that doesn't focus on one clique, but rather on all of them. And in that, Hughes captured what it meant to be a teenager.

Hughes was known as being rather reclusive; he hadn't directed a movie since 1991.  He was almost like the J.D. Salinger of directors, rarely doing interviews or even showing his face in public. But he didn't have to, the movies spoke for themselves. They speak as the ultimate testament to teen angst.

The song at the finale of "The Breakfast Club" might be called "Don't You Forget About Me." John, we won't be forgetting about you anytime soon.

TV Review: How I Met Your Mother

The traditional sitcom is not dead yet. No, it has been reborn--maybe only for a brief moment, but it certainly is npt yet dead. What the traditional sitcom needed was a shot of unconventionality, a shot "How I Met Your Mother" was able to deliver.

If I wanted, I could just give you a simple premise of "How I Met Your Mother." I could tell you that it's about a group of twenty-something New Yorkers who spend most of their free time talking about nothing while sorting out relationships in a bar. However, that premise would not give this show justice.

Here is the show's true premise. It does center around a group of twenty-something New Yorkers. The most important of them is Ted (Josh Radnor), an ambitious architect looking for love. His friends include Marshall (Jason Segel), who is currently making his way through law school and is engaged to Lily (Alyson Hannigan), a teacher whom he has been with since college. In our eyes, Marshall and Lily seem like the greatest couple ever. Finally, there's Barney (Neil Patrick Harris). Barney is the most confident member of the group. He seems more focused on getting women and getting drunk than actually making something of himself.

Here is where the show gets really original. The story is told from the perspective of Ted in the year 2030 as he explains to his kids how he met their mother. He begins his story the day he meets Robin (Cobie Smulders), the girl who would change his life. He explains how he falls in love with her, how she then becomes part of the gang, and then how they fall in and out of love all over again. Then hopefully one day, we'll find out how he met their mother.

Before we talk about what makes this show so unconventional, lets talk about what makes it so funny. The show often uses typical comic devices such as self-contradictions. Other times, it uses the scenery to make us laugh. In one episode, the gang goes to a very noisy club. Rather than do the cliche thing and be able to hear everything they say while everything else is muted, the creators instead decide to add in subtitles.

Mainly though, the show manages to make us laugh by just having funny characters. Segel is a TV veteran and also a pro at bringing lovable awkwardness to a new level. Segel and Hannigan are perfectly cast in their roles and have a chemistry that most A-list stars can barely hold on film. Hannigan, meanwhile, will make you forget that the only thing you know her by was a certain incident at band camp involving a flute.

Despite whatever chemistry Segel and Hannigan may hold, the real show-stealer here is Harris. Maybe it's because creators Carter Bays and Craig Thomas gave Barney the best zingers (can you say "legendary"?), or maybe it's because Harris is so good at delivering his lines. Every time Harris opens his mouth, you're bound to get a laugh out of it. With all luck, Harris will snag the Best Supporting Actor statue this year at the Emmys.

Now, lets get to the unconventionality of the show. "How I Met Your Mother" is not simply about a group of friends, but it has a larger purpose behind it. You feel like the creators knew exactly where they wanted the show to go with the show from the very beginning yet they don't want you to know. In a way, each episode always seems to contain some mystery to it.

There will almost always be a shocking twist at the end, and each episode is formatted almost like a movie. For instance, one episode contains Ted trying to piece together all the clues from a very drunken night, a very likely inspiration for "The Hangover." After some twists are revealed, you'll feel dumb for not seeing it coming. Other times, the twist is so sneaky and so complex that even the smartest person would never see it coming (as much as I would like to give the example I really don't want to ruin it for you).

"How I Met Your Mother," like any traditional sitcom, has a laugh track. However, this isn't the annoying kind of laugh track that "oohs" and "aahs" at every kiss and cheers loudly every time their favorite character enters a room. No, all it does, is laugh. And it doesn't feel like the show is telling you when you're supposed to laugh, but rather it laughs with you at all the right moments.

While the sitcoms of the 90s were simply about a group of friends ("Seinfeld," "Friends"), the shows of the 2000s that want to use that format must strive for something further. "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" had to add a father figure. "How I Met Your Mother" had to make itself a show about the past, the future, and massive time warps all while enjoying a few drunken nights and chats about nothing. And not only that, it's a total breath of fresh air in television market clogged with uninspired ideas and reality shows.

More Thoughts on Funny People

This is an unofficial second review of Funny People. Some movies are just so big, they need to be reviewed twice.

Usually, once I review a film, it's done. But sometimes, I am so conflicted over a film that I can't help but go back to it. This happened with "Funny People." Critical consensus is telling me not to like this movie, but something inside me is telling me not to listen.

I finished my review of "Funny People" still partially undecided. I am still mixed on my opinion, but if I had to choose one end of the spectrum, "Funny People" would fall towards the "good" end.

The reason I have decided to revisit "Funny People" is because so much happens in this long movie, and I feel like I barely got to cover everything I wanted to in one review. One thing I really would like to talk more about is the film's massive supporting cast. I talked plenty about Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill, but not enough about Jason Schwartzman. Schwartzman is one of my favorite comic actors today, and his performance in "Funny People" as an actor who caught a lucky break on a horrible sitcom was a highlight of the film. His performance reminded of his performance in "Rushmore;" like Max Fisher, his "Funny People" character always casts off an air of superiority for minor achievements. He was born to play smug.

Also worth mentioning is the always great Leslie Mann and the breakout performance by Aubrey Plaza. On that note, a post on PopWatch today made a fascinating observation about the portrayal of women in "Funny People." While some wrongly accused Judd Apatow's "Knocked Up" of being sexist (*cough* Katherine Heigl *cough*), the women in this film are portrayed as being no different then the men. Plaza's Daisy is just a struggling comedian like the rest of the guys. Meanwhile, Mann's Laura seems much less reactionary than Debbie in "Knocked Up," despite hiding much more sadness.

There are so many great characters in "Funny People." The real problem with the film was that even with its long running time, you still feel like you want more from the characters. Maybe the problem with the film wasn't that it was too long, but that it wasn't long enough. I'm not much of a sequel person but I would not at all mind seeing more of these characters' lives (luckily, a Randy movie is reportedly in the works).

Overall, it seems impossible not to recommend this movie because overall, it is a well made movie. It's a comedy that's not like most comedies coming out nowadays: it's not formulaic, it's not predictable, and it's real. Each of these characters feel like real people with conflicting emotions and even the power to change. But then again, it is an Apatow film.

"Funny People" is definitely different from the rest of Apatow's oeuvre. Most of his film's endings are decided from the beginning, but it's the path to the end that is unpredictable. "Funny People" takes the opposite approach. In "Knocked Up," you know from the beginning that one way or another Alison will have the baby, and Ben will one way or another be there. In "Funny People," we know that George will try and win Laura back. Whether or not he'll succeed at it, remains unclear. I don't know which approach is better but in the end, both work. I am excited to see whether Apatow continues this new approach to comedy. If he does, then "Funny People" was just an experiment, something that wasn't meant to be perfect. His next film then, should be comic gold.

Movie Review: Funny People

Judd Apatow is the comedy legend of our day. It seems that just about everything he touches turns to gold. After a few years of small producing and writing efforts, Apatow returns with his first directorial effort in two years with "Funny People." At first, it might not seem like comic gold. But under its scratched surface, lies a diamond in the rough.

"Funny People" is probably Apatow's most personal project to date. He incorporates real life experiences into every movie he does, but never so much as in "Funny People." In fact, "Funny People" starts off with real footage of Apatow and Adam Sandler making prank calls when they were just starting off in the comedy business.

But forget reality, lets head off to movieland. "Funny People" is a dramedy about George Simmons (Adam Sandler). Simmons is based partly off the life and career of Sandler; he's a comic legend who's become one of the biggest movie stars in the world. He may have a big, beautiful home, but like Charles Foster Kane, that home is completely empty.

Now, Simmons has discovered that he has come down with a terminal disease. In his near-death experience, Simmons decides to seize the moment and reevaluate his life. First, he decides to return to his standup career. Then, he hires struggling young comic Ira Wright (Seth Rogen) to be his writer and something of an assistant. Next, he decides to win back an old flame (Leslie Mann) who is currently married to an Australian man (Eric Bana).

"Funny People" isn't just a personal project for Apatow--it's just as personal for Sandler. And because of that, he gives the best performance he's given since "Punch Drunk Love." However, "Funny People" isn't as much of a flat-out drama as "Punch Drunk Love" was. Maybe it's not seriousness that makes Sandler's performance so good, perhaps it's maturity. In "Funny People," he's just as funny as in classics "Billy Madison" and "Happy Gilmore." However, here, there is a degree of self-awareness. The style of humor of George Simmons is something like the style of humor that made Sandler famous in the 90s. Those bothered by Sandler's sense of humor won't be bothered here.

A performance less acknowledged by critics is Rogen's. He projects a high level of awkwardness, especially when Ira is struggling through stand up routines. It's funny, but we're not laughing at him; in a way, we're cheering for him. Rogen also brings probably the most emotion he's ever brought to a role when expressing his feelings towards George in their very rocky friendship.

The film contains a fine ensemble of comedians both old and very new. Apatow regular Jonah Hill is a scene stealer in his portrayal of a comedian who realizes the key to comic gold is YouTube videos of cats. Meanwhile, newcomers like Aubrey Plaza ("Parks & Recreation") pull their own weight as well. Most surprisingly is how hilarious Eric Bana is. Then again, I shouldn't be too surprised. Before becoming a serious actor, Bana was a standup comic Down Under, and even had his own comedy show.

Along with being a dramedy, "Funny People" is also a self-reflexive show business satire. It contains fictional movies and TV shows within a fictional movie. There are actors playing actors, and actors playing themselves. Many are celebrities you would never expect to be funny, yet it turns out a certain rapper who I won't name happens to have a very good sense of humor about himself. Meanwhile, the movie within a movie "Re Do" and the show within a movie "Yo Teach!" show the somewhat dismal state of mainstream comedy.

Although all of these aspects of the movie--the actors, the satire, the drama--are all great, they all serve as part of the film's bigger problems. The first real flaw with the film is that it's too long. "Funny People" is around 145 minutes long, and you can feel every minute of it. Some scenes drag on too long. The film also tries to tackle way too much. It's central focus should be the relationship between George and Ira, and George's quest to win back Laura's affection. However, the film also goes off trying to tackle Ira's girl troubles, as well as the careers of a few other rising comics.

The only problem is, I don't think I would want to remove a single scene from the movie because every scene is so good, every character is so fascinating, and every joke is so funny. The editors must have had a more difficult time than they could ever have imagined with this film.

But there is also another reason it would be impossible to cut a single scene out. The film isn't meant to focus solely on George and Ira. "Funny People" is an ensemble film, and as an ensemble film, it must cover a wide amount of people rather than a small amount. Apatow decided with "Funny People" to make both a personal relationship film and a collage of the lives of assorted comedians.

So now I sit here, wondering whether to tell you to see or not to see this movie. Instead, I'm going to do what a good critic does best: give you my opinion, and then let you decide for yourself whether or not you should see it. This is a movie made for people who don't just like comedy, but are diehard fans of it. Even if you're not, you'll still laugh at the brilliant stand up routines and be wowed at the human connections that Apatow's career has become defined by. To put it in short, this is the first comedy epic I've ever seen.

On the Apatow Scale: 1. The 40 Year Old Virgin 2. Knocked Up 3. Funny People

Movie Review: Gonzo

"Football season's over. No More Games. No More Bombs. No More Walking. No More Fun. No More Swimming. 67. That is 17 years past 50. 17 more than I needed or wanted. Boring. I am always bitchy. No Fun — for anybody. 67. You are getting Greedy. Act your old age. Relax — This won't hurt."

-Hunter S. Thompson's Suicide Note

Has there ever been a voice as confused yet clear; bizarre yet brilliant; as relevant as the voice of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson? No, there hasn't been. I may seem biased because Hunter S. Thompson is one of my idols, but you don't even have to know the name of Hunter S. Thompson to know that "Gonzo" is one of the best documentaries made in a long while. However, if you do know his name, it would definitely help.

The name Gonzo was the name of the form of journalism Thompson invented. It was a form of journalism in which the writer literally threw himself into the middle of the action they were covering and the events happening around the event they were supposed to be covering often became more important than the actual event.

"Gonzo" traces back to the humble beginnings of Thompson's radicalism, finding it at the 1968 Democratic Convention, where Thompson's main focus became the rioters outside rather than the speech of Hubert Humphrey inside.

The movie is not so much a chronicle of Thompson's entire life. It briefly touches on Thompson's childhood in Louisville, but only uses it reveal his persona as a true outsider. The rest of "Gonzo" chronicles the rise, fall, and legacy of Thompson. It shows how this one man changed how we view writing, journalism, and the American Dream forever.

"Gonzo" achieves this through interviews with people who knew Thompson all too well, and those who knew him so little, yet could never get enough of him. Director Alex Gibney uses archival footage amazingly, revealing footage of Thompson the world might not have seen otherwise. There's footage of Thompson doing drugs, being interviewed, and even swimming with dolphins. It is footage that goes beyond the usual insanity that shrouds Thompson's image and shows that he was above all, just a normal guy. He might've been normal, but he was still nothing short of ordinary.

The film is not all archival footage, it often contains readings of Thompson's brilliant writing. Those writings are read out by Johnny Depp, who so flawlessly portrayed Thompson in the film adaptation of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas." The film often contains some reenactments of past events, which are almost as well handled as anything Errol Morris did in "The Thin Blue Line."

The film, at times, doesn't feel like a documentary. It often lets Thompson speak for himself. We get to listen to Thompson chronicle every major event of the last 40 years from Watergate to 9/11. Through these events (and Thompson's opinions on them), the film forms a kind of chronology, and Thompson's words guide the course of film. There honestly could not have been a better way to bring such meaning to his writing.

If Thompson were still alive today, he would be proud of "Gonzo." He would be proud that it is not just a film about him but for him. It portrays Nixon as a villain and displays a soundtrack full of Bob Dylan. If Thompson made a film about himself, this is surely what it would be like.

"Gonzo" is about a man who had a passion for sex, guns, and drugs, yet wasn't a bad man. It's about a man who was an outsider, yet shaped the political discourse of the last half of the 20th century. The best documentaries look past the flaws of the people they portray, and show what they did to truly impact the world. As the film ends with Thompson's ashes being shot out of a cannon, he was not just being shot into the sky, but into eternity; into the realms of immortality.

The Return of Wes Anderson & The Coen Brothers

Today marked the exciting return of not one, but two* of the greatest directors of all time: Joel & Ethan Coen and Wes Anderson. Trailers for their latest films were released today.

The Coen Brothers will be returning with a film called "A Serious Man." The trailer doesn't give much of a plot, besides the fact that the main character is Larry Gopnick (Michael Stuhlbarg). Larry's story is told to the soundtrack of the noise his head makes while being banged against a chalkboard. Larry is a university professor seeking help from multiple rabbis after his marriage, job, and sanity get into major trouble.

The character of Larry seems like the Coen Brothers' The Dude and Llewelyn Moss--just a normal guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. With this movie, it looks like The Coen Brothers have fully returned back to making black comedies after going the darkest they've after gone in "No Country for Old Men."

Usually the one factor that most affects the plot of a Coen film is location. No matter where a film is set, the Coen Brothers nail every part of the culture they are filming in. So far, I have no idea where exactly this film takes place. However, the synopsis gives off a clue that it is set in the Midwest. Could this mean that the Coen Brothers are returning to their Minnesota homeland, a place they haven't shot a movie in since "Fargo?"

While their films are usually known for having great casts, "A Serious Man" seems to have a lot of nobodies. But, if the writing is as good as every one of their other films, that shouldn't matter.

Next up is Wes Anderson's newest film: "The Fantastic Mr. Fox." "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" is based on a book by Roald Dahl, a book that happened to be a favorite of mine growing up. That's making me even more excited for this film.

"Fox" will be Wes Anderson's first film since his underrated 2007 film "The Darjeeling Limited." This is Anderson's first time making a movie for the family, but I don't think he'll have any trouble doing so. Just because it's in stop-motion animation, I don't think it will be different than any other Anderson film; the titles and background music might as well have been from a scene in "The Royal Tenenbaums." The film will be released this fall alongside "Where the Wild Things Are" and "Alice in Wonderland." Based on the look of it, after this fall, kids' films will never be the same again.

A Serious Man will be released October 9. The Fantastic Mr. Fox will be released November 13

*Joel & Ethan count as one person

View the Trailers Here:

@ Yahoo! Video

Movie Review: The Hurt Locker

Sometimes, the only way to understand tragedy is to face it--especially when it's projected on film. The War in Iraq has been going on for just over six years now. Over the past few years, many fine filmmakers have tried to tackle the subject, but none have come close to truly understanding it. Kathryn Bigelow, however, has perhaps come closest. Her latest film, "The Hurt Locker," is a masterpiece, and one that may define this generation for some time to come.

"The Hurt Locker" takes place in Baghdad in 2004. It begins with Sergeant Thompson (Guy Pearce), a bomb disarmer. After Thompson is killed in an explosion, he is replaced by William James (Jeremy Renner). James is different from his fellow soldiers. During his military career, he disarmed over 840 bombs, and thus has become fearless. The word "dangerous" certainly does not appear in his vocabulary.

The movie doesn't really have a plot. It is not about a major assassination attempt or a mission to destroy an enemy target. It is simply about soldiers trying to survive in Iraq; trying to survive a war where with no distinct enemy. It is a war where any civilian walking down the street could be carrying a case of C4.

At times, "The Hurt Locker" doesn't even feel like a movie. Maybe that's because of the grainy, shaky-cam style in which it is shot. But it could also be that every situation feels so real and so scary that it might as well have been real footage someone shipped back from Baghdad.

Maybe the reason previous films about Iraq never connected with mainstream audiences is because it was too soon to be trying to figure out the War while it was still going strong. As the War seems to finally be winding down, now seems like the time to start reflecting on it. After all, the best films about Vietnam didn't come out until years after the conflict ended. "The Deer Hunter" was released three years after the war ended, "Apocalypse Now" was released four years after the war ended, "Platoon" eleven years, and "Full Metal Jacket" twelve years. "The Hurt Locker" is to date the best film made about Iraq. I believe though, that it may not remain that way; the film has opened up a new era of how war is portrayed on film.

In addition to being the best film made about Iraq, I believe that it is not an understatement to say that "The Hurt Locker" is one of the best war movies ever made. At times, it is scarier than any horror film. Every gun shot and every explosion send an immediate jolt to the heart.

Unlike most action films today which seem to go through every scene as quickly as possible, "The Hurt Locker" has no problem slowing things down. The scenes of a bullet being fired and a bomb blowing up are both shot in real time. When the first bomb blows up, things are slowed down so much that you can literally see metal melting and the sidewalk lift off up the ground. It is nothing short of stunning. Perhaps the scene that stuck out most was the sniper shootout. This scene takes no restraints in showing the effects of violence, and both sides are so far off that literally anything could happen at any moment.

I believe "The Hurt Locker" is a movie that can be both enjoyable and moving to anyone. It does not matter whether or not you support the War, because "The Hurt Locker" does what a good war film should do: it leaves politics out. It doesn't say we should be there. It doesn't say we shouldn't be there. But it does seem to ask why we are there.

The real issue at hand though, is the idea of war in general and what it does to the human soul. In one of the film's pivotal scenes, James admires the way his infant son seems to love everything. James remarks that as one ages, you can't love everything like that. You only stick to one, two things at most. For him, that thing is war. In a way, director Kathryn Bigelow shapes the character of William James to be something like Willard from "Apocalypse Now," or John Rambo. That is, the soldier that has been through war so much that he now depends on it. At this point, killing (or in James's case, disarming bombs) has become the only thing they are good at, and the only thing they really have to live for.

Many people seem to forget the true difficulties our men and women face in Iraq. "The Hurt Locker" shows it in a way that no news report could. It portrays a world in which everything is a potential danger, and anything can be made into a weapon. At one point, Sergeant Sanborn (Anthony Mackie, in an unforgettable performance) reveals that he feels that so few people care about him, and his fear of being forgotten. This comment is not referring to his friends and family, but to the country in general. News everyday of soldiers being killed by car bombs seems typical to the point that no one even notices anymore. "The Hurt Locker" shows that no matter what, we must not forget.

I believe "The Hurt Locker" is this year's top contender for a Best Picture nomination. And in a year where there will be ten nominees instead of five, snubbing this unforgettable film would be almost impossible.