Eric Bana

Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen Star in Ambitious But Flawed ‘Funny People’

BrianTT — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:55:51 -0600

Rating: 3.0/5.0

CHICAGO – Judd Apatow’s “Funny People,” starring Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, and Leslie Mann, is like watching a friend try out a new stand-up routine. As with a lot of attempts at trying something untested, it doesn’t quite work out, but you have to admire the effort, if not the execution.

The three films that Apatow has written and directed could be viewed as a natural trilogy about common chronological development through the life of a man. “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” is about sexuality, “Knocked Up” is about fatherhood, and “Funny People” is about mortality. If it sounds like deep material for what has been advertised as a raunchy comedy, it is, but that doesn’t mean it works.

(L to R) Ira (Seth Rogen) and George (Adam Sandler).
Photo credit: Tracy Bennett/Universal

“Funny People” is an undeniably ambitious piece of work about infidelity, regret, death, fame, friendship, and love, but it simply got away from one of the most talented comedy writer/directors of the last decade. The romantic end of “Virgin” and the lessons about responsibility in “Knocked Up” had an emotional resonance that’s missing from the over-long, often-rambling “Funny People,” a film with great parts that never quite develops into a cohesive sum.

Like a lot of successful comedians, George Simmons (Adam Sandler) is kind of an a-hole. Life has left him with no friends and less real love. The star of “Merman” and “My Best Friend is a Robot” learns at the beginning of the film that he’s dying. Looking at the face of death sends George back to his roots, bringing him back to the stand-up stage and regretting the one that got away, Laura (Leslie Mann).

After a disastrous on-stage performance one night, George takes a liking to the young man that follows him, Ira Wright (Seth Rogen). Ira has been working his way up the comedy ladder, keeping a day job behind a deli counter and sleeping on the futon of his friends (Jonah Hill, Jason Schwartzman). George hires Ira to write jokes for him and the two become odd friends with the younger comedian going with the dying one to everything from doctor’s appointments to corporate concerts with James Taylor.

There is a solid, entertaining movie about an awkward, overly nice young comedian working with an older, bitter one and learning lessons about the price of fame and the art of comedy. That movie is in “Funny People” but it has been cluttered by a too-long running time and enough themes for a season of television. Instead of sticking with his “A-story,” Apatow stretches his film to the breaking point with subplots about the conflict between friendship and career and a third act love quadrangle between George, Laura, and Laura’s husband (Eric Bana), with Ira stuck in the middle.

It’s all too much for one film and the script gets away from Apatow. By trying to tell so much story, he loses the emotional impact of what he should have focused on. It’s nice to see a film that avoids manipulative melodrama, but “Funny People” is surprisingly dead when it comes to honest emotion. There are scenes of crying characters that should at least pull at a heartstring, but they register shockingly flat.

Laura (Leslie Mann) flirts with George (Adam Sandler).
Photo credit: Tracy Bennett/Universal

Part of the reason for this is the mishandling of the dramatic material, but there are serious issues of chemistry and character that enhance the flaws. I never bought the undying love between Sandler & Mann, nor the relationship between Sandler & Rogen. There’s a dramatic urgency missing from the proceedings. You won’t care if George gets back together with Laura, if Ira finds success or fame, what happens with his friends, or even if George lives or dies. All of it takes place at arms-length, like you’re watching someone on stage, not relatable, three-dimensional characters.

Having said all of that, there are things to like about “Funny People,” even if most of it is on paper. I don’t want to suggest that Apatow isn’t talented enough to handle drama. He is. And we should encourage writer/directors to spread their wings outside of their traditional niche. If your friend’s new stand-up routine didn’t work, you’d still encourage him to try again.

I also vastly prefer this Sandler to the one that makes silly faces and stupid voices as Zohan, Nicky, The Waterboy, etc. He’s missing the dramatic edge of his work in “Punch-Drunk Love,” but there are hints of that actor in this performance, one that gets away from Adam because of the lack of definition in the screenplay but not due to any mistakes by the actor.

Rogen and Mann have excellent comic timing. Eric Bana nearly steals the film with a few scenes. Jason Schwartzman gives his funniest performance in a long time. And there are some very funny moments in “Funny People”. The humor works if the drama doesn’t.

Ultimately, Funny People is a film starring very talented people made by a very talented man. You can’t write it off entirely. Judd Apatow is at the top of his game and he could have played it safe and produced just another raunchy comedy. He didn’t do that. He got up on stage and tried a new routine. It may not have connected with the audience, but you have to admire the effort.

‘Funny People’ stars Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen, Leslie Mann, Jonah Hill, Jason Schwartzman, and Eric Bana. It was written and directed by Judd Apatow. It opens on July 31st, 2009. It is rated R.

By BRIAN TALLERICO
Content Director
HollywoodChicago.com
brian@hollywoodchicago.com

Despite Daring Genre, ‘3:10 to Yuma’ Packs Powerhouse Acting With Fragmentary Story

HollywoodChicago.com — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:20:48 -0600

CHICAGO – Had you asked me to tag “3:10 to Yuma” before I screened it, you’d think me a bumbling idiot because I had absolutely no clue what to expect.

I was scratching my head not because of lice but because I knew shooting a western in this day and age was either brilliant because it hasn’t been done in so long or Hollywood suicide. It turned out to be bit of both.

Russell Crowe (left) in “3:10 to Yuma”.
Photo courtesy of IMDb
Shot in New Mexico at ranches laden with dirt, guns, spurs and tumbleweed, “3:10 to Yuma” (which references the time of a train en route to a prison) is the Russell Crowe show that’s complemented by Christian Bale and Ben Foster (from “Six Feet Under” and “The Dead Zone”).

Crowe plays the deadly-quick desperado Ben Wade who has no remorse for the men, women and children he kills, all the money he pilfers and all the families he destroys. Or does he?

Bale’s family man character, Dan Evans, grows on Wade and forces him to have a conscience.

Christian Bale (center) in “3:10 to Yuma”.
Photo courtesy of IMDb
While Bale has been in Chicago shooting “The Dark Knight” to play a dominant Batman character for that 2008 film, in “3:10 to Yuma” I initially cursed director James Mangold for making him into such a seemingly weak leading man.

Give the film its full 117 minutes, though, as you’ll see Bale indeed has stirring qualities of sound character up his sleeve.

Crowe, by the way, was Mangold’s first selection for the Wade role. After Tom Cruise considered the project but then declined, casting Crowe gave the production new life. Early on, there was talk of Eric Bana starring opposite Cruise.

Russell Crowe in “3:10 to Yuma”.
Photo courtesy of IMDb
Crowe, Mangold and producer Cathy Konrad all wanted Bale as the film’s co-lead. In the 1957 version of “3:10 to Yuma,” Glenn Ford played Wade and Van Heflin played Evans.

This day and age, the film packs the music, sights and sound you’d expect in a classic western with quality acting and a story that’s just comme çi, comme ça (ahem: so-so).

Actors are prisoners to their scripts. While jailing Crowe turns out to be anything but a picnic in the park, this simple feature-length film story leaves me unsatiated and wanting much more plot oomph.

By ADAM FENDELMAN
Editor-in-Chief
HollywoodChicago.com
adam@hollywoodchicago.com

‘Lucky You’ vs. ‘Rounders’: Bana is No Norton, Duvall is No Malkovich

HollywoodChicago.com — Thu, 10 May 2007 17:51:31 -0600

CHICAGO – “Lucky You” undoes what “Rounders” did right.

In the 1998 masterpiece, Matt Damon and Edward Norton exquisitely depict all that is divine about the game of Texas Hold ‘Em for rookies and old hands alike.

“Rounders” is among the best, most accurate and most riveting portrayals of all the delights and dodgy drawbacks of poker.

Huck Cheever (Eric Bana) teaches Billie Offer (Drew Barrymore) the basics of poker.
Photo by Merie W. Wallace and courtesy of Warner Bros.
“Lucky You,” which was initially slated to be released on Sept. 8, 2006, is like watching a staid how-to video. It needed:

A little more Robert Duvall with a bit more oomph.
A little more plausibility in Eric Bana’s character.
A little more of a love story or perhaps none at all.
A lot less Drew Barrymore. Holy hell.
A lot less juvenile instruction.
A much more compelling poker story.

Those unfamiliar with the fanatical human psychology and mathematics intrinsic to no-limit poker wouldn’t appreciate scenes like when the camera graces over various real-life phenoms.

In the film, Johnny Chan and Daniel Negreanu didn’t nab a seat at the final table of the World Series of Poker, which is the pantheon of cash games with the biggest action and the best players. “Lucky You” quietly cast these players and some two dozen others to rub their keen ways off on actors not born with their knack.

Those having played the game fives times, though, would cringe at the film’s professional inaccuracies. Any poker player knows you can’t give or lend money to another while at a table and you most certainly can’t flip over the mucked cards of another player who has folded.

Especially in Las Vegas, you’d get warned and happily ejected. In this film, these moments were casual affairs that weren’t illustrated as improper. Even titling a film about poker with the word “lucky” wouldn’t ring holy to true poker players who will swear the game’s about skill.

Cast because of his mink face and slinky voice, Bana could have been worse and could have been better with a stronger script. He didn’t have enough to work with in a film that develops a love story around a one-night affair with no apparent sorcery thereafter.

If Bana is to win Barrymore’s heart, he “must learn to play cards the way he has been living life and live his life the way he has been playing cards,” director Curtis Hanson – a longtime poker player himself – figured.

“The skills one must develop to be a good poker player are almost the exact opposite of the skills needed to be successful in a relationship,” Hanson said in the film’s production notes. “Deceit – or bluffing – which can destroy the trust needed for a successful personal relationship, is a big part of the game.”

As Barrymore sees Bana for the man he really is and the addiction he truly has, he persists in fumbling back to her. She inexplicably and naïvely takes back a man burdened by romantic entanglements that have been limited to brief flirtations and casual affairs with no promise.

Game on? Sort of.
Photo by Merie W. Wallace and courtesy of Warner Bros.
“[Barrymore’s character] really intends to be careful from now on and try and find … someone who is not going to hurt her. Then, of course, she meets Huck, who is a classic heartbreaker. When he crosses the line, she will not be bluffed or charmed like the other women in his life.”

Is this the same film I screened? Not being bluffed means not taking him back.

Ultimately, I just didn’t feel the love between these two. They lacked chemistry, and rather than convincing you they were a couple who really could be a couple in real life, they revealed the fact that they’re actors working to be something they’re not.

This “love story” was set in 2003 to pay homage to the year poker changed forever. That pivotal year was when Internet poker was exploding and amateur poker players across the world were honing their skills. That was also the year when a camera for a player’s hole cards was introduced.

This entertainment tactic was created for enthusiasts at home to more closely follow the game and learn the nuances of how the masters bet and bluff.

The year 2003 was also when unknown player Chris Moneymaker took the poker world by storm by winning the World Series of Poker. Coming from an amateur background of playing online, his win inspired players everywhere into thinking the feat could be anyone else’s, too.

Hanson says Bana was chosen for the role of Huck Cheever – the son of maverick poker player L.C. Cheever (played by Robert Duvall) – because of his transformational characteristics.

“Like Huck, Bana is a blaster,” Hanson said. “He came at his part full out. He is a true chameleon. Unlike many actors who twist characters to fit their own personalities and characteristics, [Bana] looks at each part as an opportunity to truly become someone else.”

In the film, it is Bana’s strength at the poker table – despite his weakness to live up to his potential – that is traced backed to his distressed relationship with Duvall. The two are always competing and do so dangerously without coherence and with malice.

Daniel Negreanu (left) rehearses with Curtis Hanson (middle) and Robert Duvall.
Photo by Merie W. Wallace and courtesy of Warner Bros.
For instance, they challenge each other to head’s up poker in a seemingly innocent scene in a diner. Of course, a deck of cards is on hand along with stacks of $100 bills. In a matter of minutes, Duvall ends up taking Bana’s $10,000 entry fee into the World Series of Poker.

“Huck is haunted by his father’s reputation in the poker world,” Bana said. “We see his behavior change when L.C. is around. He’s a much more secure player when his father is not around and becomes … hotheaded when L.C. is present.”

Bana is often seen at his local pawn shop. His home has no furniture. He’s always in debt. He’s constantly looking for a couple hundred bucks to “play with the guppies” and multiply his stack. He often does and then loses it all. This compulsion and its inherent realities are familiar to over-the-edge poker players.

Bana even took a bet to run a few miles and finish a 18-hole game of golf in under three hours to snag some coin. He concedes that his real-life golf game is relatively laughable.

“The golf was the most daunting part of the making the film,” Bana said. “My game had usually been of great comedic value to my friends. You could have nicknamed me ‘The Slicer’. Curtis said: ‘You have to swing like you have a four handicap.’ I don’t know how many free golf lessons I had but it was a lot.”

You’d think it’d be more convincing to choose actors actually with a true background in the talents they’re playing.

While Bana and Duvall do a decent job selling you on their skill for the game, many poker players could naturally act at a table better than many actors can learn to truly play poker. Hanson’s leading men don’t come from an intense past with the game.

In fact, Duvall in his initial acceptance of the role jested about whether or not he understood the difference between a flush and a straight. He learned some of the tricks of the trade from Doyle Brunson – a two-time World Series of Poker winner – who served as the film’s poker consultant.

Duvall is solid, as usual, but he’s no Malkovich.
Photo by Merie W. Wallace and courtesy of Warner Bros.
“I really didn’t know if I could do this part because there was so much to learn,” Duvall said. “I wish I could have gotten the script six months earlier … because I almost had to decode it. I did my research and now I understand the game … somewhat.”

If Duvall’s character would parallel the position in “Rounders,” John Malkovich holds the royal flush. Nine years ago, Teddy KGB – despite his iconic Oreo-twisting tell – was a bona fide crackerjack of the game.

While the film meant to instill overarching statements of a father yearning to reach out to his son and a son longing to screw his head on straight, the concepts were left underdeveloped and overshadowed by the footage of learning the game and the time spent playing it.

By ADAM FENDELMAN
Editor-in-Chief
HollywoodChicago.com
adam@hollywoodchicago.com