Little Fockers (2010)

Call me crazy, but I’ve always enjoyed Meet the Fockers over Meet the Parents. Some try to argue that the sequel brought down the quality of the series but I think it holds its own just fine. This poorly conceived dud, however, deserves all the criticism thrown at it.

Greg and Pam Focker (Ben Stiller and Teri Polo) are preparing for their twins’ fifth birthday party while also nearing the completion of building a new home. When Greg’s father-in-law Jack Byrnes (Robert De Niro) approaches him about becoming the heir of the Byrnes-Focker family throne, Greg reluctantly accepts. This leads to even more scrutiny and opinion from Jack about how Greg’s children should be raised. As if brochures for private schools and delayed construction schedules aren’t enough, Jack inadvertently uncovers aspects of Greg’s secret promotional work for an erectile dysfunction medication. Rather than question Greg about the few pieces of evidence he finds, Jack assumes Greg is having an affair and sets off on a mission to bring down his son-in-law.

A chief problem in this film is that Greg’s children (the titular little Fockers) aren’t featured enough. The humor in the Meet films is largely situational and it works best when Greg is trying to impress his father-in-law. In Meet the Parents, Greg was trying to make a good first impression on his future in-laws. In Meet the Fockers, Greg is trying to give Jack a good first impression of his parents. This time around? It feels more like Jack is trying to cement his legacy rather than Greg trying to do anything impressive.

There are only a few scenes where Greg has humorous moments with his kids. The rest of the time he’s arguing with Jack or sneaking around to do his promotional work. I can see Greg finally being at the point of sticking up for himself and dishing it right back at Jack but sometimes these moments feel a little too mean-spirited for a goofy comedy. When, at long last, the two come to blows, the fight scene alternates between being too corny and too serious.

Greg is a nice guy and means well. Jack should know this by now, so his jump to the conclusion that Greg his a cheating scoundrel is unrealistic. What we really need from this film is Jack to make a few choice comments about parenting styles, Greg to try to impress Jack and fail, and conclude with Greg being himself and showing Jack that that results in a loving bond with his children. Instead, we get more cheesy post-CIA paranoia antics, a lot of crude humor stemming from the nature of Greg’s side work, and not enough of what made the first two installments work.

Astounding as it may seem, Little Fockers came just $20 million short of matching the box office haul of Meet the Parents. Ordinarily that may suggest an additional sequel but I highly doubt one will surface given the terrible reviews it got from critics and audiences alike. Maybe it was the change in director or a change on the writing team. Or maybe the concept and characters were milked for all they were worth after two films. Whatever the case, the well seems to be mostly dry and what little is brought up in the bucket is tolerable at best but leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

RATING: 2.25 out of 5

Mean Streets (1973)

This is the film that broke Martin Scorsese into the big time and helped launch the careers of Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel. Its gritty realism and hip cultural awareness was lauded upon its release and it continues to be held in high regards in terms of its originality and historical importance. Sadly, I am unable to give Mean Streets the credit it is due.

Harvey Keitel stars as Charlie, an Italian-American Catholic who is trying to respectably work his way up the ranks in the local Mafia establishment while also trying to atone for his sins by trying to help his off-kilter and borderline sociopathic friend Johnny Boy clean up his act. For Charlie, its purgatory on Earth, as Johnny Boy’s antics grow wilder and more destructive, both outwardly and inwardly. Though saving Johnny Boy from himself is the ideal, Charlie would settle for saving Johnny Boy from Michael a local loan shark tired of being jerked around one too many times by the kid.

Mean Streets is filled with masterful touches. The dialogue is witty but realistic, never sounding false or overdone for one second. Some characters attempt to speak in a dignified manner while others like Johnny Boy keep their vocabulary pleasantly in the low-brow gutter they live in. At the end of the day, they’re all street rats; local bums jostling for position at the bottom of the totem pole. The only difference is who has respect and who doesn’t.

The film is shot on a very intimate scale. Gritty camerawork makes it feel more like a documentary than a film at times. The use of slow motion and voice-overs bring an added flair to an already stylish film. Scorsese provides the voice for Charlie’s conscience and inner-monologue, often times providing a wry outlook on things while Charlie outwardly seems to be having a good time. It helps accentuate Charlie’s inner conflict.

I can’t talk about this film without mentioning the stellar soundtrack, apparently provided almost entirely from Scorsese’s personal record collection. My generation fell in love with Quentin Tarantino’s eclectic and inspired musical selections for his films but there is a difference. While Tarantino includes music that few have heard before for the sake of keeping things interesting, Scorsese includes a stellar mix of popular and secondhand tunes that elevates the hipness, coolness and attitude of his characters to new heights.

While directors like Francis Ford Coppola portrayed organized crime on grand white collar levels, Scorsese focused on the gritty small time hustlers, pushers and loan sharks that make crime dangerous on a day to day level. It’s a far more believable, yet jagged pill to swallow. Instead of stylized violence, allegory and inference, Mean Streets is brutally honest and upfront about everything, no matter how graphic and disturbing it may be. This is why the film was hailed as an American original.

This all sounds like it’s leading to a glowing review and a high rating, right? Well, not exactly. Here’s why- ever since Mean Streets and Scorsese’s ensuing work, this kind of gritty realism and exposure to big city crime on its lowest levels has become the norm. Nowadays a film is almost expected to be brutally honest and realistic if it is to be taken seriously. People in my generation, myself included, have been exposed to this kind of stuff our whole lives and we take it more or less for granted.

After doing some research on Mean Streets, I understand the film’s importance in cinema history and can instantly spot its influence on dozens of motion pictures, but I can’t quite feel the marvel of its originality while watching it. It’s the same problem I encountered while watching films like Frankenstein and Rear Window. I’ve been exposed to so many references, allusions, parodies and spoofs of their themes and concepts in my lifetime that I can’t capture the originality of it all while watching it. It’s as if my film-going experiences have spoiled me from latching on to something truly great.

While I appreciate Scorsese’s breakthrough for all the impact and influence it has had on all the films I watched growing up, and while I understand the cultural and historic importance of the film, Mean Streets is one of the ones that got away; an otherwise great film falling victim to my sometimes-jaded generation.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Meet the Parents (2000)

Who would have ever thought Robert De Niro could leave you in stitches and gasping for air? Well, we know he can do that physically, especially given his filmography, but Meet the Parents shows a side of De Niro that very few could have expected to see. The man knows comedy and is one of the driving forces behind the success of this film.

Ben Stiller plays Gaylord “Greg” Focker, a semi-socially awkward male nurse. Teri Polo, a relative unknown at the time, plays Greg’s girlfriend Pam Byrnes. Greg has plans to propose to Pam in a very unique way but Pam gets a phone call from her sister who just got engaged. While listening to Pam’s side of the conversation, Greg overhears Pam say that it was a good thing her sister’s fiancé asked their father for permission first. Greg takes note and abandons his proposal plans until after their upcoming weekend at the Byrnes’ household.

Ironically, this will be the first time Greg has ever met Pam’s parents, so first impressions are a must. Naturally, everything goes wrong. After losing his luggage (and the ring) due to airline incompetence, Greg endures a series of awkward encounters with Pam’s family, her sister’s future in-laws, her ex-boyfriend and even the family cat.

Greg bumbles and fumbles his way through the weekend trying to impress Pam’s stern father. While he is said to be a florist, Jack Byrnes is really a retired CIA operative and deadly serious about everything he does. De Niro’s dead-on approach makes the character perfectly balanced between being kind of creepy and hilariously over the top. Stiller’s trademark goofiness shines through as well, especially in the scenes where his goofiness is forced to be restrained, heightening the awkwardness. Whether it was a decision made by the actors or the director, it was a wise choice.

The humor in Meet the Parents is mostly harmless. While some risqué subjects and gags are carried out, they are done with an innocence about them that modern gross-out comedies can’t quite grasp. Instead of being outright offensive, Meet the Parents loosens viewers up with a string of good jokes and gags and then slips in something otherwise shocking. Instead of going for all-out knee-jerkers, the film aims for hearty chuckles with a dash of uproarious laughter if the audience is willing.

The concept of Meet the Parents adds weight to the humor. Meeting a significant other’s parents for the first time is almost always a nervous time. The film compounds the pressure by having Greg asking permission to marry Pam, another nerve-wracking situation. All this pressure is something many people can relate to, which is an asset to any film and especially to comedies.

With a great majority of audiences knowing what it’s like to meet important new people, a connection is made between the characters and the viewers. We end up embracing these strangers on screen and welcome them into our hearts and minds as friends. We end up cheering for them and with them and we also groan and sympathize when things go awry yet again. In the end, we all get the absurd triumph we’re expecting, but it doesn’t seem obvious to us. It’s a hard fought victory for our team and we leave the theater or living room we watch the film in with a smile on our faces.

While Meet the Parents is not a tour de force of funny, it provides for plenty of laughs and makes for a darn good time at the movies. It is definitely worth seeing.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Raging Bull* (1980)

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

This film helped further solidify Robert DeNiro as a Hollywood powerhouse actor. Ironically, while Raging Bull is quite a good movie, it is hardly an enjoyable one. DeNiro plays real-life boxer Jake LaMotta as he rises up the boxing ranks and spirals downward in the ranks as a decent human being.

While at first, LaMotta’s talent and rising fame simply goes to his head. He talks tough and acts tough because he thinks he’s the best. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just a chump. His pride in his own abilities as a boxer soon takes its toll on him. He becomes genuinely egomaniacal, thinking that everyone might as well kiss the ground he walks on. Paranoia sets in as his abilities decline. He doesn’t see it, so he assumes that everyone else has a problem but him. He begins to suspect his wife is cheating on him. At one point he accuses his brother of sleeping with her. He becomes violent, abusive and repugnant. He’s one unlikable guy.

The film gets deeper and deeper into LaMotta’s wretchedness, but eventually he loses his wife and kids, and his brother. He apologizes to his brother towards the end, but I wasn’t left feeling convinced that his apologies and attempted turnaround was sincere.

Probably the most infamous aspect of this film is DeNiro’s decision to gain over 60 pounds to resemble LaMotta later in life. It’s truly shocking to see how much different he looks, and it seems like DeNiro never could quite shed that weight back off. Raging Bull is a tough film to watch and certainly won’t leave you in a cheery mood, but its refusal to spare the ugly details makes it very good.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

The Godfather Part 2** (1974)

I wanted my 300th film to be special, and selecting the Godfather Part 2 for my milestone movie was a very wise pick.

Much like its predecessor, The Godfather Part 2 is a shining example of old-school method acting done right. If you like cinema, you have to see this. If you like gang/crime films, you have to see this. Seeing this film is not only an experience in itself, but you will also pick up on many references to it in pop-culture.

It is a very long film, and may be daunting for some to sit through, but it is filled with quality acting and taut drama. I admit that this film is not for everyone, but everything you’ve heard about The Godfather Part 2 is true. It’s the real McCoy and a film-lover's film. Personally I like it more than the original Godfather, but that is a topic open for debate.

I don’t feel like I need to say anything more about this film. It’s a masterpiece and you should see it. Whether or not you do is your choice.

RATING: 4.5 out of 5

Jackie Brown (1997)

I can see why this movie didn’t do so well for Quentin Tarantino. This was his third full length directorial effort, but his first adapted screen play. His first two films, Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were written by him and thus had his personal style oozing from all corners. With Jackie Brown, he adapted a book, limiting what he could do with the characters and story. There’s not as much Tarantino flair in this one.

That’s not to say this film isn’t good. By all means, Jackie Brown is the classiest movie he’s made so far in his career. It’s a culmination of shout-outs to film noir and blaxploitation films. Tarantino injects the film with a real sense of style, making it the most believable of his films.

Brown resurrects the career of Pam Grier (of Foxy Brown fame) as a flight attendant mixed up with crooks and the law, and features some very spirited and unlikely performances from its cast. Samuel L. Jackson channels the same type of character he made in Pulp Fiction (but more criminally bent), Michael Keaton plays a conniving cop very well, and Robert DeNiro amazed me with his ability to steal the show by not stealing the show as a perpetually stoned and mumbling supporting character.

After reigning supreme for a few years as the indie film industry’s wunderkind, perhaps Jackie Brown was Tarantino’s attempt at legitimizing himself to the rest of Hollywood. It seems to work, because the end product is top notch, although not as boisterous and ingenious as his previous films, but surely not a slump either. Sadly, Tarantino turned his back on this kind of hybrid between indie spirit and Hollywood class and returned to over-the-top silliness with Kill Bill.

Jackie Brown is a quality product that only a fool would consider a blemish on Tarantino’s resume.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5