Seth Rogen: Mall Cop

I saw "Observe and Report" last night and I honestly thought it was funny as hell. There are several reviewers who don't agree with me but I think it's because most of the people reviewing this movie are not apart of the target audience. I'll agree that this film has several vulgar, inappropriate moments and a gratuitous use of the F-bomb (gratuitous may be too weak of a word in this case), but I believe it's fair to compare it to "Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters."

Let me explain.
When "Aqua Teen" hit theaters, I saw it with my friends and loved it. My friends and I are fans of the show and we got all of the jokes in the film. The next morning, when Jeffrey Lyons and Alison Bailes reviewed it on their show "Reel Talk," they ripped it apart because they thought it wasn't funny. Of course they thought it wasn't funny! Neither one of them had ever seen the show so they obviously didn't get the movie. How is this similar to "Observe?" Lyons and Bailes weren't apart of the demographic "Aqua Teen" was aimed at and they aren't apart of the demographic "Observe" is aimed at. Actually, they hated "Observe," with Bailes calling it "not a comedy" and Lyons saying it's "mean-spirited" and "never funny." This film is so apparently aimed at teenagers and at twenty-somethings, not at middle-aged film critics.
Another problem with the critics is how they all typecast Seth Rogen. On "Reel Talk," Lyons continuously states that this beardless Rogen is not funny and "is a different kind of actor." I was quite relieved to see a Rogen part that wasn't a stoner. We've seen enough of that. It's shameful to typecast actors but this particular instance angers me because when "Fred Claus" (a movie I thoroughly enjoyed) came out, Bailes stated that she was unhappy with Vince Vaughn's performance and he would have been better off in a raunchier role. Lyons proceeded to tell her she was typecasting him and that "we don't need another 'Bad Santa.'" Now, Lyons is typecasting Rogen and no one says a word to deny him. They do state that it's good for him to try to expand his choice in roles, but simply mentioning this unnecessary observance is uncalled for.
My final qualm about the reviews also stems from "Reel Talk." Lyons mentions his disgust about seeing the flasher and believed it was unnecessary to show him. In the case of nudity, there is only one scene in which a topless woman is shown. The rest of the nudity is full-frontal manhood. It's about time films had equal opportunity nudity. In other words, if a naked person needs to be shown, show a naked person of the opposite sex later in the movie. Bailes mentions "seeing the flasher naked" is "the only funny part of the film" and I halfway agree: it was definitely funny, but not the only funny part of the film.
I don't wish to write a long review of this film in the same way I did for "Watchmen," but I will justify my accusations. This film is not for everybody and I can guarantee that everyone will be offended by something in it. However, I think a line from MSN's review of the film sums it up very well: "It's a strong, strange comedy that goes for the funny bone and the jugular." It is violent at some points and, as stated before, profanity-laden to the extreme, so, like "Watchmen," it's not for the kiddies. But, if you can tolerate all of that and find the humor both in the suggestive material and past it (yes, if examined deep enough, there IS a humorous, underlaid meaning), you will enjoy this movie. Rogen's character is both likeable and loathable at the same time and his cringe-worthy comments serve only to make him seem more realistic. That's the main problem with all of these critics' reviews: they all mulled over the language, offended by it to the extreme. I have said the same thing for years now every time a critic cries over profanity: THAT'S HOW PEOPLE TALK. And, in the case of this movie and its motley crew cast of characters (Anna Faris' bimbo, Ray Liotta's exasperated detective, Celia Weston's drunk mother), that's how people act. At times, Rogen does come across as mean-spirited, but we would all be lying if we said that we never knew anyone in our lives that was like that. This film manages to take the gross-out comedy genre and give it characters that make the audience laugh with their over-exaggerated depictions of real life and real people, while also creating such an extreme of absurdity that saves it from being a social commentary (I loved this movie, but I would never be foolish enough to call it that). It's not wrong to root for Rogen, even if you feel dirty at times for doing so. That's the point.

On a final note, the audience I was surrounded with last night consisted almost completely of the target demographic. And do you know what they were doing the whole movie? Laughing. Laughing, laughing, laughing. The critics' reviews will not dictate the success of this movie. It will be all of the young people who saw its opening and then go and recommend it to their young friends because it's funny, it's raunchy, and it makes you forget the world for an hour and a half, just as a movie should.
Here is the full review from MSN:
http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie-critic-reviews/observe-and-report/#Review_0
And I used to have the Reel Talk review on here, but since the show has been cancelled, the review has disappeared from the internet. You can just take my word for it, right?

Who Watches the Watchmen?

Oh, dear God, where do I begin? It became extremely apparent to me as I watched "Watchmen" that I should've read the book to understand this movie. However, I decided not to read it before seeing this (despite having a feeling months ago that it was a good idea to do so) because I wanted to come into the movie completely ignorant. I was there to be entertained and a good adaptation entertains the audience without requiring it to read the source material. I was hoping "Watchmen" would be like that.
Boy, was I wrong.
I can't sit here and critique the changes in the story because I DID NOT READ THE BOOK. I can, however, critique the movie based on my definition of an adaptation. For the first hour or so, I knew pretty much what was going on. Less than an hour later, I was completely lost. What happened to completely lose me, you ask? I couldn't tell you. There were several little things that were never explained (What's wrong with Moloch's ears? Where did that cat come from that follows Ozymandias around? Why does Nixon have a penis-nose?) and even more major events and climactic changes that made NO sense in general. The movie began with a constant flip between present (1985) and past (1940s-1950s, Vietnam War), introducing all the characters and showing the influence on everyone's lives of The Comedian (charmingly played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan), whose murder kick-starts the film. This was easy to follow and understand and it set up a compelling mystery that I wanted to watch unfold. It was interesting and entertaining.

It wasn't until after the story of Dr. Manhattan (played in a sort of strained manner by Billy Crudup) is revealed that things get really confusing. The mystery of who killed The Comedian becomes more fragmented and the film seems to lose track of itself, introducing more and more convoluted theories pertaining to nuclear war and the future. The film becomes a chore to watch as piecing it together becomes harder and harder. By the time it ends, there are still so many questions left unanswered. Because of this, the ending seems inconceivable because it's too hard to logically get to it based on what was presented as "reason" to the audience. I spoke to my friend who read the comic and she said that the movie ending was different from the comic ending and it was unsatisfying. To me, a Watchmen virgin, I just thought it was unsatisfying and nonsensical.
This movie was not a complete failure, though. The special effects are INCREDIBLE, but this is to be expected because of all the hype heaped on this film. The most visibly interesting moments are the scenes with Dr. Manhattan (especially his back story) and the ever-changing image on the mask of Rorschach (played by a stunning Jackie Earle Haley). The fight scenes are fun to watch, incorporating slow motion, zoom-ins, and more gore than a Resident Evil game (if I may digress for a moment, I must mention just how VIOLENT this movie was. This is NOT for the kiddies, and I actually had some children sitting in front of me the whole time. Between the violence and the inevitable sex scenes, I was not confident those children would sleep well later that night).
The effects didn't save this movie for me, however, because I was expecting them to be good. It was the performances of Morgan and Haley that kept me watching. The Comedian was more prominent in the first hour, but he was the best part of that hour. Every scene he was in was irresistibly raunchy, cringe-worthy, and just plain awesome. He was the character one loved to hate and hated to love, and I personally hated how his death was what started the movie. He should've been alive during the film so he could be shown more because he stole the first half of the movie.

The second half of the movie was all Rorschach's. What an incredible performance. He was, by far, my favorite character (my friend told me everyone's favorite character is Rorschach). There is so much I could say about him but I would spoil the story if I did. In short, he is the show-stealer, being interesting while The Comedian is stealing scenes and remaining incredible after The Comedian ceases to be shown. The Comedian may be the man to watch in the beginning, but Rorschach is the man to pay attention to in the whole movie.
All-in-all, I can't hate this movie. I understand that it was obviously not for people like me, who didn't read the book, and I'm disappointed by this. A good adaptation is one that anyone can understand. "Watchmen" was supposed to be the magnum opus of the comic book movie genre, but I believe it falls short of "The Dark Knight," a far superior movie that is accessible to EVERYONE, from hardcore Batman fans to people who've never even heard of the batty vigilante. The story is way too convoluted for a Watchmen virgin to understand, but the stellar performances by Morgan and Haley, along with the special effects, save this movie from being a complete failure. Think of it this way: Terry Gilliam was originally set to direct a "Watchmen" film once in 1989, then in 1996, but read the book and said it was impossible to get everything into a two-hour movie. If Terry Gilliam won't touch it, it MUST be complicated. Watchmen virgins, be warned: if you want to understand, read the book first.