Monty Python: Almost the Truth – The Lawyer’s Cut

I’ve been a Monty Python fan since my early teens when I first discovered John Cleese and Michael Palin through A Fish Called Wanda. Wanda is among my very favourite comedies and I’ve seen it an absurd amount of times. This eventually led to my parents telling me about Monty Python, and thanks to the magic of youtube, I was able to peruse hours worth of their skits and clips from their films. Obviously, I actually sought out both the show and movies after a while, and it was well worth it.

This past week I’ve been watching the documentary on the Python’s, “Monty Python: Almost Truth- The Lawyer’s Cut”. It runs as six hour long episodes, and despite the fact I paced myself at one a day, I could have easily watched the entire thing in a single sitting. It is one of those rare documentaries that passion and respect for its subject matter is translated in both the thoroughness and style that it employs. I’ve seen a few documentaries and profiles, or whatever you’d like to call them, on the Pythons and this is by far the strongest. It not only offers new insights that others never touched on, but is unmatched in its level of seriousness (or unseriousness) and the general spot on tone it employs.

I think the film is strongest when exploring both the dynamic of the group, as well as the show’s influence. The discussions about how the group operated, wrote and collaborated was all new information to me. As most of the film is simply “talking” heads of the five living members of the troupe (along with TV interviews Graham Chapman gave in the past), they recollect the ups and downs of working together. I think I easily take for granted the trials and tribulations involved with working with other people, as I haven’t in a long while. It’s easy to forget or assume that people like McCartney and Lennon didn’t always see eye to eye, if they did, their work would not be as great. Similarly, you have more than one group of writers involved in Python. They rarely worked as an entity, Terry Jones and Palin were one group, Graham Chapman and John Cleese another, while Idle and Gilliam tended to work independently. Beyond that, they all had to come to further agreements when they all came together. This worked more or less smoothly, but was exasperated towards the end of the series, as well as during the production of the films (less with Life of Brian).

Beyond that, you have personality clashes. At the core, Terry Jones and John Cleese seem to be the most dominant physical personalities. Both are apparent control freaks and perfectionists, though they share almost entirely opposing ideas as to what “Python” is. On one hand this is what led to the strong quality of the sketches, as a lot of the bad was weeded out, and constantly pushing and pulling for compromise only made for a higher grade of work. However, they also discuss the difficulties presented by Chapman’s alcoholism which put a strain on his professional relationship with many of them, especially Cleese.

Some have complained with some of the gossipy feel of the documentary, as none of the surviving members seems to be unafraid to pass some judgments or throw some digs at each other (except maybe Palin, but the documentary only proves that he’s nice to a fault, it’s actually quite amusing). I personally don’t have a problem with it, it’s the nature of group dynamics and when you are dealing with “art” (yes, even comedy), it’s difficult not to hold a few grudges. As they all still have more good to say about each other than bad, gripping about their criticisms of each other seems utterly inconsequential. A circle jerk would have been far duller and much less honest.

The doc also features a huge amount of clips from their television shows, films and other various appearances. I have to say, the segments taken from Holy Grail and Life of Brian especially look incredible, if they are from some kind of new HD version of the films… well I’m convinced.

Since no discussion of Monty Python can go without this little “conversation”, some short discussions on some favourites;

Favourite Member of Python: Michael Palin

I’m such a sucker for Michael Palin, he is not only the best looking of the group, but is so adorable I just want to squeeze the life out of him. The documentary only confirms that he is genuinely an incredible, nice guy with a huge amount of passion, and that only adds to his appeal. It’s clear in all his performances that there is this wonderful earnestness and love for what he is doing and portraying, and he is easily among the best performers of the group. Even post Python, I love his own work in documentary film, and travelogues. He is just one of those people who is endlessly appealing and never fails to make a smile. I think my favourite part of the doc though, at least Palin-centric moment, was when he was getting visibly angry in a TV interview about the release of Life of Brian back in 79’. It’s especially funny to watch Cleese reacting to him, because it’s clear seeing him so perturbed is a rare sight.

Favourite Sketch: The Spanish Inquisition

Probably the hardest question, so many others come to mind… I love, especially, so much of those really short sketches that almost seem to be time fillers, like Palin complaining to a police officer (Cleese), that his jacket was stolen, then inviting him over to his flat. It’s just so deliciously mundane and yet inexplicably hilarious. Back to the Spanish Inquisition, I think it perfectly sums up for me everything great and wonderful about their work. First we start with this historical reference (though, with all of their work, missing the reference is no great loss… part of the brilliance), and a violent one at that, which is completed deconstructed and mocked. The absurdity of the Inquisition needing to leave and come back again and again because they haven’t properly rehearsed their terrifying entrance is beat only by the fact that their torture methods are badly thought out, useless or even… comfortable.

Favourite Film: Life of Brian

This is an easy one for me, as much as I like their other work, this one is by and far the most cohesive film. I think it works best as a cinematic narrative and rises far and above works in sketches and episodes. Life of Brian stands as one of the greatest cinematic insights into religious mis-interpretation and dogmatic belief structures in general. I am consistently impressed with how shocking the film manages to be, without ever being truly blasphemous… well, close to not being truly blasphemous. It’s anarchic and heretical, but somehow is hopeful and human… the film’s final act is absolutely wonderful in this sense. I also appreciate the amount of research poured into this, and all their films. As a nerd, I love that they’re book nerds too, because the first thing I think when I start on any kind of artistic project is that I must head off to the library and do some research. That’s how it’s done, yo.

Favourite work by a Python after Python: A Fish Called Wanda

Maybe the funniest movie I’ve ever seen, I laugh so hard it hurts when I see this. I don’t know what else to say, everything about it is brilliant.

Red

When the newly appointed American cardinal Edward Egan returned home from his investiture in Rome in 2001 he sported a red silk hat, signifying that the Pope had made him a prince of the Church. ‘What does the red symbolise?’ a New York reporter asked him. Cardinal Egan said it meant you had to be so willing to protect the faith that you would even go to death. Mary Queen of Scots might have agreed. On the day in 1857 she was fated to meet the hooded executioner she chose to wear a black-and-red dress. The black was for her death, but the red dye (no doubt made with beetle blood) symbolised, or perhaps summoned her courage meeting it.

For many cultures red is both death and life- a beautiful and terrible paradox. In our modern language of metaphors, red is anger, it is fire, it is the stormy feelings of the heart, it is love, it is the god of war, and it is power (130).

—————————————————————————————–

They didn’t always listen, the Great Masters. Turned had been warned many times not to use paints that faded, but that day in 1835 or so when he was gazing at his workbox thinking of the pink sunset and a violent sea, he chose his brightest red, even though he knew it would not last. Or perhaps he even liked the idea (125).

Victoria Finlay

Colour: Travels through the Paintbox

Eastman Color lacked Technicolor’s rich saturation, transparent shadows, and detailed textures. Still, the monopack stock was easier to use with widescreen dimsensions of the day. Unfortunately, Eastman images tended to fade — especially if the footage was hastily processed. By the early 1970s, many prints and negatives had turned a puttyish pink or a sickly crimson (301).

Kristin Thompson & David Bordwell

Film History: An Introduction (third edition)

Long faded crimson dreams in J.W. Turner’s Waves Breaking Against the Wind

The Downey Project Week 5

Previous entries

WEEK 1

WEEK 2

WEEK 3

Blog

Tropic Thunder (2008)

“I know what dude I am. I’m the dude playin’ the dude, disguised as another dude!”

Je suis amused! I just can’t see how you can go wrong with this film! It is fun, crazy and Robert Downey Jr’s role in this film is like the epitome of awesomeness! Seeing this for the second time, Tom Cruise still creeps me out, but he also reminds me that the song “Low” is actually quite of catchy, so I can give him some credit for that. Anyway, I definitely applaud this film for still being so stupidly awesome!  YAY!

Eros (2004)

To sum it up, this is a film with three very different stories that collide to make one average movie! As for the first story, “The Hand”, which is meant to be the best of the three, I can agree to that, but it still wasn’t anything that great to me. The second story called something or another with Robert Downey Jr was pretty funny, but also was quite run of the mill. Now the third story by some Italian guy was just horrible! The first half had girls walking around not wearing bras with tissue thin see-through shirts, in public no less! How indecent! In the second half these already indecent girls just dance on the beach completely naked till the credits start rolling. Blarg, Eros is not worth anyone’s time.

Syriana (2005)

What was that thing growing on George Clooney’s face? Salt and Pepper hair is cool on your head, but just looks yucky when it lives on your face. George Clooney also had quite a beer gut in this movie, obviously not his most flattering role. Superficial aspects aside, this film was quite good. It had some deep messages, Matt Damon being very dramatic and it makes you feel very intelligent while watching it. Props to the film for that!

Solaris (2002)

The first thing worth mentioning is how this film has Daniel from Lost essentially playing Daniel from Lost! Haha! I never noticed before this film how much he likes to move his hands as he talks; it is quite hypnotizing actually…Nonetheless this film gets the nothing special remark from me because it was really only about water planets, George Clooney’s inability to cut cucumbers and people you used to know being created out of nothing; nothing new there.

Intolerable Cruelty (2003)

I would have never guessed this was a Coen brother’s film. Ya when I look bad on it now I can see the subtle Coen touch, but I don’t care much for the Coen brothers anyway just as I didn’t care much for this film. It was weird to see teeth obsessed George Clooney, but this film made me realize something else, which was that George Clooney wears the same suit in like every movie. You know that grey one? I’m sure you would remember it if you saw it cause he wears it all the time! So this is a film that is meant to be a romantic comedy, but with that, it was never THAT funny (I guess the Coen touch?) and it was never THAT romantic.  In essence, textbooks would define this as a film and just a film.

Johnny Be Good (1988)

So this is the film that actually introduced Uma Thurman’s career; interesting fact I bet? What that fact makes me wonder though, is how Uma Thurman actually had a career after this. Her role in this film reminded me a lot of Misha Barton from The O.C which I guess you can take as a bad sign. Aside from that, Robert Downey Jr actually played a role where he was an “uncool” kid (I know!) who was sort of terrible at football, but at least he was an entertaining guy and his scenes made this film somewhat tolerable. Actually, at first I thought this was a film by Robert Downey Sr. because I already read about how this film was terrible so I jumped to that conclusion, but it turns out this film was just terrible without the guidance of Downey Sr…Although considering he did play a minor role, there is a possibility that his “I make terrible films” vibe rubbed off on the whole film cursing it with bad luck.

Capsule Reviews for the Week of April 3 2010

Adventureland (Greg Mottola, 2009) REWATCH

I don’t see myself getting tired of this film anytime soon. The beginning remains somewhat shakey, the establishing scenes typically adolescent and obvious. Then again, the world the main character inhabits is typically adolescent and naive… his world is completely un-fazed and shallow, there are no challenges to his actual emotional state. The film takes off after the credits, as the music brings us to a new world, and though the flashing lights and shots of rides of an amusement park ought to inspire notalgic feelings of childhood and games of youth, they usher in a distinct sense of melancholia. My own experience in life probably mirrors, on a shallow surface level, that of Jesse Eisenberg’s… but I only wish I still had his naive sense of go-getism and his severe lack of emotional awareness. I still maintain that Kirsten Stewart’s Em is one of the most painfully realistic portraits of unhappiness I’ve seen in a film about youth. Not even in the obvious sense of her stating her regrets or her “outbursts”. It is in those aching moments of silence that you truly feel the pain and sadness she is holding back. I wonder why the characters around her fail to see that, as they are only able to project their desires onto her… only adding more pressure into her life. The single shot of her driving the car while the orbs of light fly by might be my favourite of last year, and the best summation of any moment of unhappiness I’ve ever felt in my life. Though this film only ranks as my fifth favourite of this year, in any year with a weaker output it could have easily been my favourite.

Daria: Is it College Yet? (Karen Disher, 2002)

Though a favourite television show of my early adolescence, it’s been years since I’ve so much as seen an episode of Daria. I decided on a whim to rent the movie, because I was yearning for a return to youth… and I have to say, I was impressed. The film is hardly exceptional, and though I am far removed from the events of the show, it feels like an extended episode more than anything else. I have a distinct sense that a lot of the humour and relationship woes would have been far better expressed in an episodic formula. It was fun though to realize how much of the show I remember, and how much of an impact it had on me… the satire on high school life, and the upper middle class is incredibly on the nose, intensely intelligent without packing the obvious punches. It is never too mean either, something I can’t help appreciating, because misanthropy is only too easy.

Caché (Michael Haneke, 2005)

Despite the fact that much of this film sailed well over my head, it’s vivacity and craft have me well convinced that it is exceptional… it reminds me of my old adage (I am after all wise and weathered) that one does not have to understand something to be fully able to love and appreciate it. The film relies on mysteries, the unsettling secrets and deceptions that haunt our lives. The small, the big and the unexplained. What is hidden does not always seem harmful, it is often just a misplacement of information that makes our own lives easier. The film is punctuated by news stories, televisions and social/cultural tensions, but they lie in the background. Is the film raising issue with our own reception and relationship with the world at large? The self-deceptions that allow us to live comfortable lives while others suffer? Perhaps. The film boldly presents it’s final moments with the same detachment as the videos and cultural allusions, it is puzzling, even disturbing as two characters who have no connection are suddenly linked, and yet we have no voice, no explanation… just an understanding that a relationship exists where we never expected, and it is an amiable one. The punctuated violence of a particular scene, is one of the most brutal I’ve seen on film… perhaps because it is so unexpected. Then again, Haneke has never been one to pull any soft punches when it comes to the horror of violent death.

2046 (Wong Kar-Wai, 2004)

Simply put, one of the most beautiful films I’ve ever seen. I didn’t think it was possible for me to love any Wong Kar-Wai film more than Chungking Express or In the Mood for Love, but I was wrong. I still need time to digest it fully, but at this given moment, I am in complete awe… the images, and the emotions are awe-inspiring in the profoundity of their superficiality. Has emptiness ever felt so potent, so real? The shifting from one world to the next is wonderful, seamless as the blending of art and reality take place. What world takes precedence? Neither, because none is more real than the next. It’s just so…. gahh… no words folks. One thing… Translation issue maybe, or philosophical (my film had French subs) when he says roughly, “Nothing changes in 2046”. Does he mean, that world remains the same, or it is the same world as the one we live in? I mean, is it the material world/environment that remains unchanging, effectively, or our inner desires/wants/feelings? I feel as though this may be painfully obvious regardless, but I was once told there were no stupid questions…

Les Bonnes Femmes (Claude Chabrol, 1960)

Though only one Chabrol has ever wowed me (no, it’s not this one), his themes have consistently fascinated me. The placement of the women within society is critical to every film of his I’ve seen; he is consistently fascinated with exploring female relationships with one another and the world at large. In this film in particular, he examines the treatment of women in relation to men, especially the almost persistent violence leveled at his female characters. Nearly all of it is dismissed as games, or playful, though the stakes are eventually raised. Chabrol never paints his women as weak, or inherent victims of their sex, but rather paints a rather grim portrait of a status obsessed patriarchal society that allows inequality to flourish. Nearly all his characters are frankly, unsympathetic and unlikeable, but that is actually part of the film’s charm. Chabrol’s empathy is not exclusive, and the characters themselves are clearly unhappy… the titles “les bonnes femmes”, ironically translated as “the good-time girls” reflects the character’s dissatisfaction with their tumultuous commercial lives, but there is unfortunately little other channel. I would not recommend this as a first entry into Chabrol’s work, I think it benefits greatly from an expectation of what his oeuvre entails. Him being dubbed the French Hitchcock is not without merit, and is almost essential for the suspense and tension created in the film’s latter half. The film was actually kinda eye opening for me, despite the fact I don’t find it thoroughly engaging… I suppose in a sense it’s a moral tale, though I don’t think it condemns the life style of the characters, rather it mourns the dangers and disillusionments that it inspires, yearning for change and a more hopeful tomorrow.

The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call – New Orleans (Werner Herzog, 2009)

Not sure quite what to make of this film, and I am sure this is the normal reaction. Generally though, I am surprised at how ambivalent I am towards it, because as weird as it is, it is never truly compelling or engrossing. That isn’t to say it is without interest, the expectation of strangeness is enough to keep the film moving and to keep my interest… but overall, I doubt it’s ability to leave any kind of lasting impression. I have to wonder what Herzog is trying to say, the constant presence of animals, the too good to be true ending, the subversion of every trapping of the crime genre… in many ways, it defies any and all attempts to be pinned down, a quality I can’t help half-admiring. I sorta wish the film was more consistent, or maybe just that I liked it more. It’s strange, my favourite parts of the film aside from the random animal POV and the ending, were the scenes involving Xzibit, who is somehow incredibly endearing and likeable. I am really at a loss as to what to say here… I would like to see Herzog do more films like this?

The Kid Stays in the Picture (Nannett Burstein & Brett Morgen, 2002)

Today was the last class of my film aesthetics course, which happened to be my very favourite university course with my very favourite university professor. I have a feeling my time at university will be all downhill from here, and I mourn the future of my education. A man of peculiar taste, my professor had three filmic passions; horror, documentary and 1970s ensemble cast disaster films. Combining, more or less, all three in our final class he picked out a truly innovative documentary called The Kid Stays in the Picture. Using audio from an audio-autobiography, still images, television and film clips, the filmmakers paste together the life of one of Hollywood’s most infamous producers, Robert Evans. His career began as a child actor, and with two major roles in Hollywood films during the latter part of the 1950s. Realizing that he had little to no talent at acting, Evans decided that he wanted to become a producer, and that’s what he did. Evans has had his hand in some of the best film’s of a generation (Rosemary’s Baby, The Godfather and Chinatown among others), and is credited personally with saving Paramount studios. The film is intensely dynamic, visually the photographs and montage are brought to life through a wide variety of techniques that transform familiar still images into a medium more akin to animation. The film is consistently engaging, it is intensely personal and one-sided, but most of that is the charm. This is truly one of the best documentary films I’ve seen, and I recommend it to anyone with an interest in doc cinema or Hollywood history.

Hearts and Minds (Peter Davis, 1974)

A film that reveals the true criminality of the government policy makers, Hearts and Minds takes no official political stance… at least not in the strictest sense of blind political allegiances. This is only appropriate for a film that reveals the deceptions of five consecutive “commanders in chief”. Hearts and Minds may be the purest anti-war film I’ve ever seen, one that not only succeeds to reveal the value of human life, but examines the political and economic costs of the Vietnam war in particular. Even taking into account the extreme situation of the Vietnam conflict, the film successfully paints the painful and essentially disgusting cost of a violent war-prone culture. If Noah Chomsky argued in the mid-90s of a conspiracy of a culture of fear, a conspiracy of a culture of war seems all the more probable. Hearts and Minds is all the more relevant in our contemporary age as oversees conflict has been forever changed, and yet consistently repeated. The mistakes in this world are clear, even from a purely political a-human perspective. The misunderstanding and misdirection of the “enemies” cultural values is essentially a mistake. Though in the short term, it helps dehumanize the opposing army, making fighting easier, if the conflict is not speedy, it will cause a very unhappy gap between the invader/opposer and the people involved. The misunderstanding will cause a rift that will often create a bitterness that will only extend the conflict. The film is at it’s best painting the true horrors of war. Not only the irrational violence involved, but the detachment the American public and experience had in comparison. This is probably the most telling aspect of modern warfare, as North Americans in particular involved in international conflicts, are no longer even affected by acts of rationing, possibilities of air raids and home grown attacks. This detachment is presented in the perpetuating of military values, and things kinda come full circle… the film ends on a note asking what have we learned? The film presents the thesis that, even on an individual level, not much has changed… if anything at all. It is easier to lie, to deceive, but it is therefore easier to continue engaging in these kind of destructive conflicts. The film consistently presents it’s narrative in terms of misdirection, not only in direction, but in stylistic presentation. It’s truly an engaging and emotionally powerful filmic style, and as manipulative as it may be, it really is not a stretch of any imagination to paint this conflict as anything less than essentially destructive and inhuman. At heart, this is a film about the cost of capitalist pursuits… the costs are not only high, but entirely misguided.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (Terry Gilliam, 1998)

A paranoid drug induced cross section of American consumer culture. What is paranoid about kitsch? The fact that kitsch is God, and God is essentially a distilled and misleading package of the American dream. What is worse? We celebrate, engage and participate in this market amidst real world conflicts. It’s a veil, and in a sense, the drug induced frenzy that the protanogists inhabit is one that allows to see beyond it. Drugs are not a means of escape, but a means of seeing the world as it really is… at least from a perspective of it permitting the true absurdity of our existence and world to emerge. I wouldn’t necessarily call this film a thesis on drug use, but rather the depiction of a volatile paranoid state that has been filtered through the perspective of a truly visionary journalist. His vision of American life skirts any romanticism, and despite the absurd anarchy of his world, the fact that he’s a crazy gun wielding crazy person (crazy needs to be emphasized) his vision of freedom is strangely poetic. Does Gilliam’s film succeed? I’m not sure, there isn’t enough fear… the paranoia that these characters fall into, as absurd as it may be, as colourful as Thompson may make it, is still genuine earth shattering fear… as it very well should be. There is not enough horror in this comedy! I don’t think Gilliam’s film is entirely bad, I actually like it quite a bit. I just think it is entirely wasteful in terms of exploring and presenting the text. It is far too one dimensional, it is only in the words, and Depp’s performance that the nuance, irony and politics of the situation… I am just unconvinced that the filmmaking supports any of the writing, it is simply a superficial interpretation… sure there are visual hints and games, but it never quite fits together in a meaningful way. The only scene that really and truly comes close to what I’m really looking for (not consistently, but intermittently) is the scene at the diner… which is actually genuinely upsetting and somehow, real. There is nothing necessarily wrong with it, it’s just a missed opportunity. The only shame is, a society of Hunter S. Thompson’s is a failed civilization. Then again, we could probably do worse… we are probably doing worse… I think? I really do not know. I’m not sure I want to know. Well, maybe a little… I will say, I’m surprised how this film somehow avoids being entirely misanthropic. It’s certainly not the opposite of it, but it doesn’t feel hateful in the least, fearful maybe, but not really hateful.

The Downey Project Week 4

Previous entries

WEEK 1

WEEK 2

WEEK 3

Blog

Hugo Pool (1997)

Robert Downey Sr. is moving on up with some famous actors like Patrick Dempsey and Sean Penn starring in his film, too bad his ability to make anything good is still a skill he has yet to achieve. As for Robert Downey Jr, this was definitely his weirdest role that I’ve seen him in yet. He played this foreign guy who was a murderous director who killed one of his extras because they were hopping around in the background and it really annoyed him. He was actually kind of funny, but bizarre would be the first word that comes to mind. Anyway, there really is only so much to be said about a plot that centers on a girl who cleans pools and puts people like Patrick Dempsey in the back of her truck.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

AH! Sean Penn again! He’s definitely out to get me, but sadly for him I am not watching all his filmography so he will just have to try that trick on somebody else! Anyway, this film has taught me that Sean Penn really loves his hair and so when I meet him later on in my life (which I will) and he asks me “Oh, why didn’t you watch more movies with me in them? I did try to send you secret messages by being in two films that you watched trying to convince you to watch my filmography as well if you didn’t realize.”, and then I won’t say anything and instead will ruffle his hair and run away and then he’ll never try and trick me into watching his filmography again! As for the film at hand, it was all good, only it was really long! I couldn’t help but catch myself once or twice drifting off into the world of other things I could be doing instead of watching a 2 hours and 43 minutes film. Not to mention, I was waiting so long for George Clooney and he only appears for less than a minute at around 2 hours and 41 minutes into the film to say three sentences, which seemed like a waste of an actor in my opinion…

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

I don’t plan on rewatching all the films that my two chosen actors have been in for this project, but if I do happen to have a rewatch here and there I do plan to record it such as the case with this film. This has got to be one of the most entertaining films of 2009, which you can just watch at any time and still be thoroughly amused. On a romantic level alone, the romance between Sherlock and Watson was just so passionate that it makes you wonder why Rachel McAdams’ character even written into this film! Anyway, for the sequel I believe to spice things up, Guy Ritchie should take his character Mickey O’Neil (Brad Pitt) from his other movie Snatch and somehow get him also into the sequel!

Up In the Air (2009)

How to make this movie:

Step 1: Find George Clooney (from what I hear this is a difficult feat!)

Step 2: Pay him some money to be in your movie (by some I mean millions!!)

Step 3: Put him on a plane…..

Step 4: Film it!

On another note, I loved this film; in the above steps, I am just trying to say that this movie is George Clooney playing George Clooney to the max! Anyway this film is worth seeing for many reasons, such as the very underappreciated response from Clooney to a statement by saying “I am NOT A DINOSAUR!” Good stuff indeed…

Two Girls and a Guy (1997)

With film title like this one, my thoughts on this film are hopefully a little self explanatory. I will at least give this film credit for making three of the most unlikeable characters actually work. Besides that, this film has taught me a valuable lesson about how guys spend their time alone at home, which is apparently by singing at the top of their lungs and phoning their mothers, I guess I can hope I’ve been mislead? After reading on imdb trivia that the writer/director for this film wrote this all with Robert Downey Jr in mind, I can’t help but be somewhat worried….