Mike & Dave Need Wedding Dates

The men might have their names in the title but it’s the women who steal the show.

It you’re in need of an antidote to disappointing blockbusters (see Suicide Squad), you’re not a big fan of science fiction (see Star Trek Beyond) and for whatever reason can’t stand kids films (erm maybe you’re heartless…see Finding Dory, I guess..?) then this film just about does the job. If you like your frat pack movies and love watching a bit of raunch then you’re going to love this.

Mike (Adam Devine) and his younger brother Dave (Zac Efron) are renowned  for their behaviour at family events. They think they get the party started, their family think they end all the parties with reckless and dangerous behaviour after getting each other relied up. Their sister Jeanie (Sugar Lyn Beard) is about to get married to Eric (Sam Richardson) so the family issue the brothers an ultimatum to prevent them from running their big day – if they want to attend they must bring wedding dates. They post an ad on Craigslist – offering an all expenses trip to Hawaii for two ‘nice girls’ in return for accompanying them as their wedding dates. The ad goes viral, with the brothers even going on tv to discuss their search. That when definitely not ‘nice girls’ Tatiana (Aubrey Plaza) and Alice (Anna Kendrick) find out about the search, deciding to pose as ‘nice girls’ they end up accompanying Mike and Dave to the wedding. The boys quickly discover their newfound companions  are far wilder than expected. 

This film is not the greatest comedy to come out of this millennium. In fact once this summer finishes I doubt it will ever be remembered. And yet, for right now, it more than serves its purpose of a summer comedy. It easily passes the six laugh test and most of the jokes are hits rather than misses. And even with the misses the jokes come so frequently the miss is quickly remedied. The standout joke, which was so throwaway you might even miss it, has to be when Tatiana is talking about one experience when she was so high she read a shampoo bottle for 13 hours. The delivery and the punchline itself caused me to giggle myself silly, so much so I nearly had tears of laughter.

The story rarely strays from an unexpected path and is at times rather predictable – though this is not a huge problem considering how entertaining it ends up being. Based ‘sort of’ on a true story (one which I fully intend to investigate further) it’s great fun to watch the situation escalate with a series of raucous situations. The film is reliant, almost overly, on it’s cast to provide the personality and charm of the characters. Yet, rather pleasingly, it’s something all of the cast succeed at.

We’ll go in order of introduction. Mike, played by Devine in his first leading man role, does well. He brings the oddball charm he’s most known for providing in both Pitch Perfect movies (here’s my review of the sequel ) and tv series Modern Family whilst going to even more extreme lengths. Whether it’s the fact he shares most of his screen time with old pro Efron (old pro aged 28- ha!) it occasionally comes across that he is trying to too-hard leading his character to be gratingly over-the-top. On the whole, however, he provides many laughs. Best moment: his meltdown over his behaviour.

mike.gif

Then there’s Dave. Efron plays the role with ease, providing a nice and easy comic groove he has been displaying in recent years. His character here is far more likeable than his character in Bad Neighbours 2 and plays the more rational of the two brothers very well. At times it does feel like he’s coasting on his admittedly innate charm and yet then brings it out with some excellent delivery. Best moment:  his relationship with Alice.

dave.gif

The film’s most valued player has to be Aubrey Plaza. She plays Tatiania to deadpan perfection – think April from Parks & Rec but wilder and raunchier. She easily out-grosses and out-does the boys. Her adept skill at manipulating the boys and concealing their boozy and stoned behaviours provides much hilarity. Best moment: the aforementioned shampoo gag.

tat.gif

The big surprise from the four had to be Anna Kendrick as Alice. Kendrick USP tends to be character who are clever, deadpan and kick-ass with a bit of goofiness. Here she is more than a bit ditzy, a bit dim and completely goofy. Normally she seems really with it and together, here she’s a total loose cannon. It really works, bringing a sweetness and sincerity that balances well with Plaza’s powers of evisceration. Best moment: her flashbacks of her not-quite wedding.

alice.gif

 It’s down to the chemistry and in-syncness of the four leads that allow this film to work so well. It’s crude, rather rude, not massively memorable and yet funny enough to fill in 100 minutes running time. If the heatwave we are promised in the upcoming weeks does actually arrive this film is a great excuse to hide in an air conditioned cinema!

stars

‘Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates’ is in UK cinema now. 

 

Elvis & Nixon

Yep. Actually a true, and very funny, story.

Upon seeing the trailer you may have felt a ‘Woah, that’s weirdly brilliant!’ feeling. That feeling lasts the entirety of watching the film itself.  The meeting of two of America’s then most famous/infamous men did actually occur in 1970. In many ways the men were actually quite simillar, seemingly rooted by their conservative values and working class upbringing. Yes, Elvis was the hip-swinging, gyrating King of Rock’n’Roll and Nixon was, well, Richard Nixon. but they did have some shared interests. Or, at least, Elvis thought they did and desperately pursued a meeting with the then President of the United States. The film follows Elvis on his quest and the subsequent meeting, to much audience amusement.

1970, Graceland.  Elvis Presley (Michael Shannon) is watching television on his three television screens. He isn’t happy at what he sees. He sees lots of drugs, lots of protest and lots of unnecessary deaths. He decides that he can do something about it, using his celebrity for good and decides to become an undercover agent in the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. He just needs to meet with President Nixon (Kevin Spacey) first to get it all organised. Luckily he’s got friends Jerry (Alex Pettyfer) and Sonny (Johnny Knoxville) to do that. Nixon’s underlings Krogh (Colin Hanks) and Chapin (Evan Peters) are more than keen, but it looks like their boss will need a lot of persuading. 

The film uses the seemingly unlikeliness of the situation/s to advantage. Quite often (arguably too often) the laughs arise from the ‘No way! I don’t believe it.’ school of comedy. Yet that isn’t such a bad thing when you look at just how good the source material and it’s adaptation to screen is. The gags are good, well written and paced and told with great delivery.

I am a huge fan of Michael Shannon (Midnight Special was an underrated gem, click here of review) and he soars in this comedic-yet-not-really-comedic role. At times I had to remind myself I wasn’t actually watching Elvis Presley, not necessarily due to his look but due to his personality, exuding the aura and charisma of one of music’s true greats.

What helps is the film’s moments where he interacts with us mere mortals. The expressions of those he comes across, the mystification and disbelief, do not get old or less funny. His foe-turned-friend Nixon, as played by Kevin Spacey, also creates a truly memorable and hilarious persona, behaving in a way that certainly seems Nixon-esque. Shannon does steal the show though with the best lines and the fact he can truly pull of huge medallions and a massive gold belt.

The film also utilizes its supporting cast to great effect. I loved both Peters and Hanks as the acting-older-than-their-age young suits, their scenes with Spacey were standout. I also rather enjoyed an unrecognisable Knoxville in his brief but memorable role as Elvis’s close friend. Pettyfer, as Elvis’s BFF, was the only disappointment. He should have been a character played with warmth and wit. Instead he was a bit of a charisma vacuum.

All in all, Elvis & Nixon is fun to watch based on a true story movie that is more than a little bit amusing. Worth a watch.

stars

Florence Foster Jenkins

Further proof that films are like buses

Occasionally, more frequently than a blue moon but not as often as a full moon, two films about the same topic will come out at around the same time. The most famous example would be 1998’s apocalyptic clash between Michael Bay’s Armageddon and Mimi Leder’s Deep Impact (to save you from speculating, I prefer the latter). And now, in 2016, we have two films about ‘the world’s worst opera singer’ Florence Foster Jenkins. Mme Jenkins was born in 1868 and spent many of the latter years of her life as part of New York’s aristocratic music scene. Renowned for being a very generous benefactor of ‘struggling’ artists she was unsurprisingly popular, so much so her inner circle were able to put up with her recitals – recitals which recordings prove were devoid of tone, rhythm, pitch and sustainment of a single note.  Last month’s magnificent Marguerite was inspired by Florence Foster Jenkins infamous legend – transplanting the character to 1920s France. Now we have one of the grand dames of acting playing her in a biopic of her life in a production that is difficult to avoid comparison to its wonderful European spiritual counterpart

.After an incredibly well-received production in front of a gathering of her various women’s groups, most of which she chairs, Florence Foster Jenkins (Meryl Streep) decides she wants to get back into the swing of regular rehearsing again – ideally culminating in a grand performance. She sets her loving husband St Clair Bayfield (Hugh Grant) on the case. During auditions they find the perfect candidate in the form of Cosme McMoon (Simon Helberg). McMoon rehearses with Florence daily and swiftly becomes part of the furniture for Florence. Things aren’t as easy for McMoon as he must deal with the fact that he employer is the worst singer he has ever heard, something Florence’s British ex-thespian husband does not appear to acknowledge. Then again neither of them acknowledge the fact he lives in an apartment in the city with his mistress Kathleen (Rebecca Ferguson)…

As I have stated previously it is very hard to separate this from Marguerite which I enjoyed tremendously. It seems bitterly unfair to draw a comparison between two films that, subject matter aside, would never have been compared in terms of place of origin, cast or budget. However, and I have no qualms in admitting this,  I think Marguerite is the superior of the two. I really struggled when watching Florence Foster Jenkins for a multitude of reasons, reasons which have not really been addressed by the majority of reviews which shine the film’s praises.

I found the tone rather one-note (ironic considering the focus of the film!) with a plot that meandered between events and scenes. Streep’s characterisation at times bordered on pastiche. Could it be that Streep prefered to let her character reach for the high notes without providing the filler? However during the film’s quieter moments Streep really brings the character to life with some much needed depth with a revelation about 30 minutes in that does provoke a much-needed shift in tone. Admittedly this can be a common problem with ‘true story’ films as often truth can be stranger than fiction, making the truth rather difficult to believe. And yes, in case you were wondering, the singing is as bad as you’d think it would be. How the film portrays this singing is another aspect I found quite bristling when watching as I felt that the audience are called on more frequently to laugh at her rather than with her. As opposed to presenting her as a woman with a passion that truly gave her a purpose for living (*ahem* Marguerite) the film has would could almost be perceived as a mean streak as it laughs at her delusions instead.

This is not helped by the rather hollow archetype Grant portrays as her husband who spends most of his time maintaining Florence’s facade – that’s when he’s not entertaining his mistress. The reasoning for her presence is scarcely explained and results in Ferguson being vastly underused. Helberg (best known for playing Howard in The Big Bang Theorygrates profoundly as a camp closeted wannabe man about town.  The fact he spends the majority of the film with a fixed expression of embarrassed bewilderment only reinforces the sentiment that Florence is a figure of fun as opposed to one who requires understanding.

The film’s message is decidedly unclear.Many reviews refer to the affectionate and heartfelt treatment the film gives its title character. Instead the film feels light on charm, instead possessing a simplistic plot that is full of encouragement to point and laugh at a rather vulnerable figure.

2 stars