Malfunction junction / Check out Dusk by David Doub

Well, I was hoping to post a review on Richard Laymon's book The Traveling Vampire Show, but my computer now has a cold (they're still checking to see if it's swine flu), so in the meantime, I thought I'd give an update as to what's going down.

Remember how I mentioned a while back my growing excitement for Halloween '09? Well, I want to gather a post on the movies that are being released for the season pretty soon. I'll be doing research and killing my brain cells in an effort to compile a good list of movies for your spooky October nights.

Also, I should be receiving Experiments in Terror 3 from Provacateur Pictures, which is a group of short horror films. Expect a review shortly.

I have the film Atonement waiting to be watched on my bookshelf right now. It's not a horror movie, but it's something, amiright?

I'm in the process of finishing the book Games of Terror: Halloween, Friday the 13th, and the Films of the Stalker Cycle by Vera Dika, which the title explains very thoroughly. This is probably next on the list of things I have to review.

Also, I will be popping Devil May Cry 4 into my Xbox 360 and playing through that, so expect a close look at Dante and Nero and all of their monster battles in a review that will get posted here sometime in the summer of '09.

Other than that, I'll let fate decide what else is in store for me, but since I've been meaning to do this for a while, I'll leave you with a promo for a new comic series that has recently been coming out.

The author, David Doub, emailed me about his new vampire graphic novel, Dusk, which can be ordered from Amazon here.

The comic's plot is described as follows:

As a battered wife, Eve's only concern was to keep her marriage together. But
when she is kidnapped into the sordid supernatural world of vampires and foul
magic, Eve finds she doesn't want to leave. Her mysterious benefactor, the
Vampire Lord Ash, wish her to have a normal life but Eve chooses to stay in the
service of Ash. Dusk is the stories about Eve and her challenges living in the darkness.
Dusk is a supernatural action/drama story done in a dynamic blending
of the sequential art styles of American Comics and Japanese Manga. Several
artists help tell these stark noir tales of Vampires and Unrequited Love.

It sounds like an interesting premise, especially its combination of manga and
American comics, and would be worth checking out. If you're interested, you
can view chapter 1 on Doub's ComicSpace site and other little treats as well.

Here are some sketches from Doub's site:

Movie Review - Doomsday

Doomsday

I wasn't sure what to expect from Doomsday, coming from director Neil Marshall who also worked on the very popular film The Descent from 2005. It looks like a zombie film but it's technically not about zombies; it feels like a comic book but it's not that either. But though Doomsday looks a lot like The Descent's gritty, dirty world, it's lacking in the scares and the intensity that drove it.

The film takes place in the future, 2035 to be exact, which is 27 years after the outbreak of a mysterious virus in Scotland. In 2008, authorities quarantined a major section of Scotland off, leaving any and all people stuck within to die with the virus. However, the virus has reappeared in London, and the government needs Eden Sinclair (Rhona Mitra), a mercenery who just barely made it out of the original quarantine, to go into Scotland and find a cure for the virus; the government has reason to believe that a scientist named Kane (Malcolm McDowell) had been developing an antidote for it. So Eden ventures into no-man's-land territory in the quarantine with a team of two-dimensional people and a gigantic car a la the Dawn of the Dead remake and are immediately attacked by punks with mohawks and nose-to-ear piercings. Most don't make it out alive, and Eden and her teammates are captured and taken to the punks' home base. Here they learn that the punks, led by Sol (Craig Conway) are in a war with Sol's father, Kane, and his people. Finally, after some cannibalism and torture, Eden gets out of the punks' territory alive, only to be captured by Kane's people in medieval-wear. Turns out that there is no cure for the virus, and that the people that are still alive were immune. A gladiator battle, numerous car explosions, and another battle with Sol ensue, but Eden is able to bring back Kane's daughter Cally (MyAnna Buring) as a test subject to unearth any cure from her blood.

If Doomsday sounds a lot like 28 Days Later or basically any other zombie film, you're not the only one. After watching the film, I can safely say that it uses a lot of 28DL's ideas but changes them up by adding punks and knights instead of zombies. The story itself is very weak and predictable, and it's not even substantial in the long run. It feels as though we haven't actually seen the plot transition much from its original idea, and in this regard, Doomsday is always trying to compensate for this by violent bloodbaths and giant explosions.

By then, though, it's hard to get away from the lack of an arresting plot and all of the violence and action just tends to become mindless entertainment for the sake of forgetting about what the movie could have done but won't do. That's not to say that the action isn't cool or well-done - it's pretty damn awesome, and ass-kicking at it's finest with tons of splattered blood and over-the-top car chases, kind of like the jungle chase scene from Indiana Jones IV. These parts of the film are done really well, except for the annoying camerawork during fight sequences that make me think someone with Parkinsons' took the shots. But even if the action is really awesome, it only highlights the fact that the rest of the film is lacking in everything that makes those shots worthwhile. 

There's a lot of things that seem really unimportant to the film in general that are a hindrance to everything it's trying to do. Eden's loss of an eye in the opening sequence could have been a cool concept for the film, focusing on her intent to find a cure as a sort of revenge; instead, it plays no major part in the movie except to serve as a means of videotaping a conversation. It was disappointing to say the least, as it seems we are set up to expect something from this rather than its lackluster conclusion.

I'm not sure what to think about the two rival factions, the punks and the knights. They make for interesting fare to watch, but I'm confused as to why the virus' effects made everyone change into either a Misfits-fanboy or King Arthur knight, replete with gladiator fight. It's as if the writers wanted some interesting critique on young and old cultures and the battle between them, but if this was the case there was nothing to warrant this conclusion. Plus, we must remember that any of the punks in the quarantine must have been born after the quarantine occurred in 2008 and therefore would not know about the punk movement because it would have been around 60 years ago. This is the same with the knights - although older, this group would still know that knights had gone out of "style" a long, long time ago and it seems very strange they would have reverted to this antique style of fighting if we're in a truly futuristic world with recording eyeballs. Plus, Cally seems to have never seen a car before, except as we see towards the beginning of the film, there are tons of cars abandoned on the roads. 

There's also an error in distance here, as at first it seems like a far trek from Sol's lair to Kane's castle, but when Eden and friends are escaping from the castle they immediately come upon Sol and his gang, who happened to know they were there so they could cause more bloodshed. I don't know, maybe I'm being a bit too nitpicky on the problems of the film, but then again, they just don't add up into a coherent, plausible plot and it took me out of the narrative and into mindless entertainment territory.

And that's the thing I have a problem with - it would be fine if Doomsday attempted to be a fun action movie with no qualms about sacrificing scares or emotion in general other than "FUCK YES!" but it doesn't work that way. It feels like the movie is trying hard to be emotionally affecting in its portrayal of the public at large being paved over by the government in an attempt to cut their losses, or in showing the hundreds of people left stranded in their houses because of the quarantine, but since the rest of the film is so comical and graphic in its showing of death, it doesn't work at all.

But you know, if you like numbing entertainment made primarily for gorehounds with little regard to storyline, this is probably the perfect movie for you. It doesn't make any ground within the apocalypse genre (in fact, it may lose some because of its disregard in maintaining a serious tone when it really wants to create gut reaction) but it still has a ton of explosions and more than enough splattered brains. And even if the punks vs. knights idea doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense, at least there's a gladiator fight, right? That's redeemable, right? Well, I guess you should decide for yourselves, but for my own answer, I shout, "Nay, to its dooooooom!"

Doomsday on Rotten Tomatoes

Special Movie Review - Yes Man

Yes Man

Jim Carrey returns to comedy with Yes  Man, coming off of the serious 2007 thriller The Number 23 and his voice-acting role in Horton Hears a Who! Even though it's been a while, Carrey still has the same antics that have gotten him so far in his career, although at this point it seems as though these shenanigans are what carry most of his films. 

In Yes Man, Carrey plays Carl Allen, a man who says no to everything. He's still trying to forget about his ex-wife, wishes he'd get a promotion at work, and has remained static for years as he lives every single day of his life by routine. His friends Peter (Bradley Cooper) and Rooney (Danny Masterson) are sick of all of Carl's excuses, urging him to change or he'll become a "lonely man," so Carl goes to a convention led by Terrence Bundley (Terence Stamp), author of the extremely successful "yes-man" attitude. Carl is persuaded to try saying yes to everything and finds that this strategy makes his life a lot more interesting - he gets a promotion to corporate, has a ton of fun, and meets an interesting young lady named Allison (Zooey Deschanel). But saying yes to everything has its consequences, as Carl soon learns when people realize that he says yes to anything even if he doesn't want to.

Yes Man's premise draws a bit of a resemblence to Carrey's other film Liar, Liar, but it's somewhat able to distinguish itself somewhat because Carl's obsession with saying yes is not mystical but totally controllable. This is a strength, for Carl feels like a real person who is not sure about his life and his personality. There's a vulnerability to Carl, which comes out later in the film, that explains his boring personality in the beginning of the movie and his taking a liking to his new "yes-man" attitude later on. Carrey does a good job at playing the straight-laced man in the beginning, and it's even more of an accomplishment because he comes off as borderline unlikable. This is a tough thing for Carrey to portray because he has made such a name for himself as a pleasant comedian, but he succeeds in making Carl a bit of a grump. As Carl progresses from boring to spontaneous, so too do Carrey's jokes. 

There's something familiar about all of the humor in Yes Man, though, and it may be funny but it's also pretty shallow - slapstick humor rather than more intelligent fare. Carrey plays his tricks out like every other film; it's a good flashback to his other comedies but it feels stale and if you've seen it once you know what to expect. There are parts that hit extremely well but there are others that are only grin-cracking at best. One example seems to be when Carl explores the wonders of oral sex with a grandmother - it's semi-funny, semi-gross, but has fully been done before. 

Though it makes for good progression, the beginning of the movie does start off a little slow. There's not too much in the way of humor until Carl begins to see the joys of life; it's not exactly boring but it's not too compelling either. Once we get into Carl's willy-nilly yea-saying, though, the movie starts to move towards its ultimate, inevitable climax - Carl finds that saying yes to everything is a no-no - and picks up in both humor and subject matter. By then, though, it's almost critical that Carl become a more likable person or else the film loses the audience.

While the premise of Carl finding a love interest in the impromptu Allison and then having problems with it because of his new-found life motto is foreseeable, their relationship is cute enough, and interesting enough, to hold the interest of the audience, at least until the lackluster climax between the two. There's something missing in their fight over being a yes man; Allison must know something about how Carl says yes to everything because if their relationship was strong enough to warrant them moving in together, they should know a little bit more about each other than their obvious personality traits suggest. In fact, though Allison and Carl feel like the "right" couple, they seem to know very little about each other in the end. Their love is cute but it's slightly unbelievable. 

Deschanel is great as Allison, mostly because she has perfected this type of character. It almost feels like her in the flesh anyway. She is what really makes the film progress, even though Carrey has most of the scenes, and without her insightful thoughts we wouldn't have a movie, just a man who says yes to everything.

I can't help but have mixed feelings about Yes Man. It's pleasant fun for the majority, but towards the end of the film it loses momentum and the finale is forced and cliched. The film does have a good message, but it's buried under slightly unimportant events that create laughs but don't generate much in plot development. And while Carrey does a good job, it feels like he's played it safe with this character as it's an amalgam of all the characters he's ever done, and so Deschanel steals the show here with a fine performance. There are laughs (some forced), there's some unoriginal plot turns, and there's a theme about living your life by doing what you want to do, yet it makes for a mediocre film. Had the film been a bit more funny and a tad less generic, it would have been more of a success. In the end, it turns out like Liar, Liar minus laughs plus 12 years and we've seen it all before.

Yes Man on Rotten Tomatoes

Halloween was on AMC last night...

...and I know that it's coming up on summer and I should be yearning for a slew of new movies and warm weather, but I can't help but look forward to 2009's Halloween season.

Who can resist the temptation of Halloween's Haddonfield on All Saint's Eve, with kiddies running amok, jack-o-lanterns on all of the stoops, scary movies plastered all over the televisions, and of course a serial killer running rampant through the town?

I know I sure can't.

Movie Review - John Carpenter's The Thing

John Carpenter's The Thing

John Carpenter's The Thing is actually a remake of an old 50s movie The Thing From Another World. Of course, Carpenter's film barely resembles that predecessor, but it's worth noting. Instead, The Thing  takes a more gruesome turn that harbors some intended distrust of the characters. 

Kurt Russell stars as rugged R.J. MacReady, a bearder, shaggy-haired man working on a scientific expedition in Antarctica. When we tune in to their situation, a Norwegian sled dog has escaped from its ransacked camp and two Norwegians have come hunting it down via helicopter. It crashes, and MacReady goes to see what's up at their camp to have them in such a stir over a dog. Turns out some weird stuff was happening there, including a discovery in the snow. Soon, the crew over at MacReady's camp finds out the secret - the dog is actually an alien life form that can replicate its cells to change shape. As the team struggles to understand the being, the thing keeps cloning, causing discontent within the camp as no one can trust the person they see.

Carpenter's direction is a perfect example of how very little characterization can be effective in a horror film - rather than fall flat because of its lack of interesting characters, The Thing thrives off of this by presenting situations where the audience does not know who to trust. We are given just enough qualities of each character to distinguish one from the other, but they also stay fairly mysterious. The only character who we have much contact with is MacReady, but his drinking problem and later suspicious actions are cause for the audience's turning on him. This makes for great cinema because it's so hard to guess who the thing is. One can attribute some of the intensity of the film to the actions of the characters as well. With their growing confusion and sense of hopelessness in the face of the thing, they begin to physically turn on each other, emphasizing the survival instinct of the human being and the spread of distrust among individuals. 

There's a change in this film from external monsters to the internal that is a more chilling experience; rather than seeing the terror walking around in the open, which acts as a more blatant, obvious scare, the thing uses relative normalcy to produce the shock of chaos. It's more interesting, more gripping, and completely unexpected. A scene where MacReady is burning the blood of each crew member to unearth which one is the thing is a prime instance of this; even if the audience does know that something is going to happen, it's hard to predict exactly what or when, so the viewer is always on his or her toes.

The graphic alien life form is done so well that it's easy to forget the really lame UFO sequence at the beginning of the film. The thing changes shape in undulations and spasms and the special effects are amazing. The changes from human to animal are quite surprising and are significantly distant from scenes like the chestburster from Alien. Instead, the disintegration of the human body seems painful, even though it's not a real person. This is especially apparent in the scene where the head of one of the crew members, Norris (Charles Hallahan) tries to crawl away; the disgusting feeling that the alien can never be stripped of all of its pieces is frightening and produces paranoia even in the viewer.

While the ending leaves it open to interpretation whether the thing is still alive, it's almost not satisfactory. The pride that the viewer feels for the crew's sense of duty in stopping the life form, even if it means a suicide mission, is cancelled out by the conclusion of the film when MacReady and another crew member, Childs (Keith David), survive. It seems best to quarantine themselves rather than risk infecting the entire planet, and there's just something to be desired from the ending.

The isolation of the crew is key to the film, and there's a sense of claustrophobia that adds to the "bottled-up" dread of the camp. It's hard not to be affected in some way by the distrust running rampant, and the psychological weight of the film sticks to the viewer like glue. It may be over 20 years old, but The Thing is still very relevant as a horror film that turns the audience against its characters - with no one to trust, there's also no lifeline to hold onto, mimicking how MacReady feels as he struggles to deduce who the thing is before it escapes into the population. We want to trust him, even if we can't, and this is the power that the film holds over us through most of the movie.

John Carpenter's The Thing on Rotten Tomatoes

Movie Review - Asylum (2008)

Asylum (2008)

Directed by Dav R. Ellis, Asylum tells the story of Madison (Sarah Roemer), who moves into a college dorm that has been newly renovated. She harbors a dark past full of death, witnessing her father's suicide caused by his insanity and attending the same college where her brother killed himself. To make matters worse, her dorm used to be an asylum led by deranged Doctor Burke (Mark Rolston) who tortured people in hopes of "curing" their problems. The doctor has come back, but Madison can't decide if these things or really happening or if she's going crazy until her friends Tommy (Travis Van Winkle), Ivy (Ellen Hollman), String (Cody Kasch), Holt (Jake Muxworthy), and Maya (Carolina Garcia) start dying one by one.

You know, Asylum's a funny movie. It's not necessarily good - it personifies way too many stereotypes and its story is too familiar to really any headway within the genre - and yet its still a fun movie to watch. With friends, that is. As you make fun of it.

The fact of the matter is, Asylum is not effective in most of what it tries to do. The characters are generally flat, uncharacterized, and mostly unlikable - the only ones that we do like end up dying first. At first, this is surprising and a little bit original; at least they shook things up a little bit without killing the asshole first. But it doesn't work because the characters are so stereotypical and common to the slasher genre that we know they will eventually bite it. There's no reason to keep watching because there is nothing that we can't already foresee. 

Yet still, there's something appreciable about the straightforward, comical style that the film utilizes. It's conventional and overdone but still entertaining because of how damn funny it is. Madison feels very underdeveloped and as soon as we think we know her, she shifts her personality. It's easy to make jokes about all of the characters; they practically mock themselves.

The insanity of Madison comes into play early on in the movie and then again towards the middle, but it's not even a possibility because the audience has already seen a couple of deaths initiated by Doctor Burke. Herein lies the major problem that Asylum gets caught in: it presentes some fairly interesting conflict or action to NEVER RESUME IT! The plot feels very scattered and only loosely correlates to finally devolve into a rigidly formulaic slacher film that's not even that good.

The violence is over the top and fake; there are some entertaining scenes, but these are probably the only reason to keep watching. Doctor Burke is not scary - instead, he's hilarious with his deep-throated drawl and S&M suit. And here's the kicker - an intriguing set-up about the doctor punishing the students as a treatment for their problems falls flat on its face as the characters have to explicitly state what's going on. Most of the time, a flashback occurs right before the treatment that barely sums anything up enough before they die. Also, the treatments don't seem to fit the problem, and we end up laughing and just not caring.

Towards the end of the film, the creative violence seems to fade away into a series of stabs at the eyes, which could have been gruesome one time but quickly get stale. This more or less sums up the entirety of the film, where a mediocre beginning leads to a fire metaphorical fire which burns the metaphorical house down to its metaphorical foundation.

It's hard to tell whether the movie is supposed to be taken seriously. There are a few times where there's humor at the expense of the film which I can respect. It's a pretty bad film as a contendor in the horror genre, but it's a fun 90 minutes if you get friends together and make your own Mystery Science Theater 3000. Get some pizza, pop this in, and laugh away your troubles for the night.

Asylum (2008) on Rotten Tomatoes

Movie Review - Funny Games (2007)

Funny Games (2007)

It's a ballsy move to remake your own movie. In a way, it expresses the fact that the first rendition of the film was flawed. Yet there's also a courageous side to this as well; admitting that the film needed to be remade to get across the point the director was trying to make is a step towards dedication and perfection, as a writer may strive for with his milieu of rough novel drafts.

This is, then, part of the reason for director Michael Haneke's remake of his own film, Funny Games. While I've never seen the original, I can safely conclude that this 2007 rehash is a successful attempt at creating Hanek's original story that can stand on its own without having to know the background of the films.

A rich, collected family of three travels to their summer house on a secluded resort, consisting of mother Ann (Naomi Watts), father George (Tim Roth), and son Georgie (Devon Gearheart). They are immediately characterized as laid-back, golf-vest-and-khaki-pant people who live for the finer things in life because they have the money to. Yet as they move in to their home, Ann and George notice strange things about their neighbors. Two new boys have shown up, Paul (Michael Pitt) and Peter (Brandy Corbet), both of whom seem to harbor some strange qualities. The family tries to get settled into their home, but the two boys come over asking for some eggs. Instead, Peter and Paul make themselves comfortable at the familiy's house, playing little games with the family that terrorize them without much actual violence. They make a bet with the family - Paul and Peter wager that the family won't make it to 9 AM the next morning while the family bets they do. 

Right from the beginning, things seem strange within the movie world. There are quick, abstract shots of the family driving in the car, listening to classical music, and director Haneke does a great job of showcasing how boring and stereotypical the family we are about to follow is. Soon, a great noise/grind track by John Zorn's band Naked City takes over the sound, and it comes as a huge shock after the pleasant classical music from before. This fantastic opening gets the audience ready for the terrors that will soon befall the family, and Haneke's ability to grab the viewer right at the beginning with an unnatural use of sound is so great that I was immediately absorbed in the film.

As the family unpacks, we get strange feelings. Sure, the family seems perfect in every way - yet there's a weird distance between the parents and the child. At one point, Georgie asks for a knife, and Ann expresses, "I'd like to see that back," as if she doesn't trust her son. Father George mimics this by getting pissed at Georgie for scraping up his boat; the parents worry so much about material possessions, which they can obviously afford to buy again, that they push their son away. This plays into the film so much in so many ways that one can't help but marvel at the subtle characterization expressed in just the opening scene of the film. 

For one thing, when the family first meets Paul and Peter at their house, Ann treats them like crap. They want to borrow eggs, and after Peter drops the first batch, Ann begins to verbally insult him with every little thing he does. Here, we see that Ann is quick to judge, especially after Peter knocks her phone into the dish water. From there, everything goes downhill for the family as Paul and Peter start to dish out the torture. In a way, Haneke emphasizes the fact that this family had it coming with slight vengeful tones. It's harrowing, because we are torn between two points of view: Peter and Paul are awkward, strange fellows but seem to mean no harm in the beginning while the family seems to be more of the enemy. Haneke quickly turns the table, but there's still a resonance that the family has an inner turmoil as well as the one that Paul and Peter cause.

Another interesting juxtaposition in the film is the two feelings that we get from the two psychotic men's games. In a way, they are funny, and it's a horrible feeling that we as the audience get for laughing at the black comedy underneath it all. Take, for example, a scene where Ann is forced to play Hot or Cold to find their dead dog - the situation is not funny at all, yet the way she is led around by Paul is dark, viscious, and comedic all at the same time. There's this constant battle of emotions in the film that really causes the viewer's discomfort as we watch helplessly. 

The games get progressively more horrible, leading to a climax (for me at least) where Ann is required to fully undress. There's no graphic depiction of the nudity, nor is there very much onscreen violence, but it makes it all the more brutal to watch Noami Watt's tears fall as Paul and Peter demean her. This psychological pummeling is a staplepoint for the whole movie, and as we near the end of the film, it's almost too much.

As I said before, there's very little graphic violence on screen, and most of the time Paul and Peter don't physically harm their prey. In this way, it keeps the movie from falling into the cliched torture porn genre - while violent torture is gruesome, it's rarely afflicting like Funny Games' realistic terrorization. 

There's another factor that adds to the terrifying realism and claustrophobic atmosphere of the film, too: long camera shots. Some scenes are actually painfully long, with shots being carried out for maybe ten or fifteen minutes. As a culture that is obsessed with constant movement, these scenes are hard to watch not only because of the events happening onscreen but because we aren't used to the turtle-like crawl of the film. It's not a flaw, though; instead, it mimics the action of the film. A terribly disturbing scene where Georgie has been killed shows a wide shot of Ann bound in her bra and underwear hopping frantically. At this point, we don't know who is dead, though it seems it might be Georgie; we think Ann will hop over to Georgie and cry for him, yet instead she hops to the television and shuts it off without even thinking twice of Georgie. There's an insurmountable amount of tension that this long shot creates - my heart was beating probably three times as fast as I waited for the unforeseeable. 

Though it seems Haneke was going for a critique on television as theme for the film, it doesn't seem strong enough to me. In fact, I feel like Haneke criticized something else entirely - our vengeful spite towards anything. The only violent death we see onscreen is Peter's, and we feel a relief as it happens. But Haneke rewinds the scene for us so that it never happened, creating this sinister mindset that what we just thought was part of the same thought processes that Paul and Peter have when choosing their victims.

This film is unbelievable, gut-wrenching tension. The long shots might not be for everyone, and the experimental filmmaking like the Naked City song may annoy some, but for those who appreciate the more avant garde, Funny Games is a twisted, painful experience. It's not for the light-hearted, and it will make you feel disgusting. But then again, Haneke gets that point across undeniably. And while it does resemble A Clockwork Orange to some extent, Funny Games extracts itself from being categorized into any one cliche.

Funny Games on Rotten Tomatoes

Special Movie Review - I Love You, Man

I Love You, Man

I Love You, Man is more reminiscent of the recent slew of Judd Apatow movies than it is to director John Hamburg's past PG-13 friendly films. Yet Hamburg's crisp script and direction propels I Love You, Man towards the former's successes rather than being seen as a knockoff, creating a stand-alone title that can deal with the Apatow associations and still garner a wide fan base.

Main character Peter Klaven (Paul Rudd) is getting married to Zooey (Rashida Jones), but there's only one problem - Peter's a little lacking in the friends department. Overhearing a bit of criticism over not having a best man, Peter sets out on a handful of man-dates to find a friend quickly, although none really succeed. While trying to sell the Hulk's mansion, Peter meets Sydney (Jason Segel), a unique fellow with a taste for reading people's movements and the band Rush. Peter and Sydney hit it off quite well (albeit a bit awkwardly), and soon Peter's hanging with Sydney more then Zooey. This causes a bit of strife within the marriage, ending in Peter breaking it off with Sydney right before his wedding. Yikes!

I Love You, Man plays out like a romantic comedy of sorts - only this time, instead of wooing a woman, Peter is finding a guy to hang out with. There are a lot of similarities between dating and Peter and Sydney's relationship, which are intentional and effectively placed to create a lot of humor. And while the romantic comedy genre has become a stale and tasteless affair, this film breathes new life into both the aforementioned category and the buddy comedy.

What carries the film in both comedy and entertainment is the awkward, quirky characters. Paul Rudd's character is an odd yet lovable man, made even more unique by the way he converses with people. One gets the feeling that he doesn't quite know his social cues yet, and most of the dialogue that happens between Peter and other characters is where the laughs lie. Rudd does a great job of establishing Peter's personality early on in the film and never wavers from it.

Jason Segel is the second stand-out here for obvious reasons, as he is the character that needs to be the most likeable to pull Peter away from Zooey. Segel pulls it off well, especially because it feels like Sydney might just be the real Segel anyway. There's a lot to enjoy about Sydney - the fact that he's all about truth, his love of throwing professionalism to the wayside to jam out with friends, his good-natured humor and attempts of helping others - that make for humor and realism.

But the main characters are not the only ones who add a lightening atmosphere. Andy Samberg makes an appearance as Peter's gay brother, Thomas Lennon from Reno 911! puts in a cameo as Peter's gay lover, and Joe Lo Truglio plays a guy whose voice cracks every time he gets excited. Each has his or her own quirks which seem little but add a lot to the plot in establishing a sense of accepting the unique or strange.

The beginning of the film differs a lot from the second half, as Sydney and Peter don't meet until about halfway through the movie. The beginning is more about establishing Peter as an individual and showing his relationship with Zooey. Yet I couldn't help but feel that, as Peter and Sydney become better friends, the audience is shown too much of Peter-Sydney and not enough of Peter-Zooey. It's unfortunate that Rashida Jones is absent from many of the scenes, as her character seems to be one of the more typical characters that helps to establish an anchor of normalcy. Zooey and Peter's relationship is lacking in depth and drama, and it would have better suited the film to go for a more equal view of both relationships to get a more intense reaction from the fact that Sydney is encroaching on the couple's romance.

But with that nitpick aside, I Love You, Man is really good - it tackles a few important themes while also supplying a plethora of hysterical, embarrassing situations. There's a tendency to battle gender roles and sexual norms that stands out as a critique on our culture, and even though we laugh while in the context of the film, the content is still buried behind the jokes. It's refreshing to find that we are moving towards a more open-minded time where movies can present a motif such as a platonic, loving male friendship and be taken seriously as a truly understandable experience.

Let's just take, for example, the scene where the two men go out to dinner together. Here, we have a manly bonding experience discussing relationship problems and even social dilemmas. This instance is a challenge to our own views on culture - how often do we see men having dinner at a table for two?

While there's a slight lack of a climax and effective conclusion to the fight between Zooey and Peter over Sydney, it makes sense when one thinks of it - what is so wrong with a guy having a really close friend to share their passions and thoughts with? It's not weird for women or men to love the same sex in sexual or friendly ways, and I Love You, Man makes that known by Zooey's complete acceptance of it. The movie is rewarding in this regard, and also presents a true-to-life humor that gives one the sense that the times are changing for the better. And man, I love that.

I Love You, Man on Rotten Tomatoes