Skip to main content

She Home Alone’d me!

The Night Before
(2015)

(SPOILERS) It’s pretty much a given that any film featuring boorish oaf Seth Rogen will feature the consumption of copious quantities of weed – off screen and on – but here he goes all in, with a spouse-gifted pharmaceuticals bag (“It’s every single drug in the whole world”) and the chance to act off his moobs for most of the movie. And much as I have an allergic response to Rogen in all his hirsute glory, he does at times extract a mirthful response. The problem with The Night Before isn’t its potential – After Hours with a dose of Yule log – so much as the tendency to excess and never knowing when less is more. But then, Rogen buddy and screenwriter Even Goldberg also co-scripted This Is the End, which fell prey to exactly the same issues.

Goldberg is co-credited with Kyle Hunter, Ariel Shaffir and director Jonathan Levine. The latter has proved himself a consistently creative visual stylist, despite his propensity for slumming it with his buds, to best effect in the buds-free, surprisingly affecting zombie romance Warm Bodies. Perhaps at some point he will have matured enough to see the folly of teaming Rogen as Charlize Theron’s love interest. Until then, best of luck to his career.

Here, he duly collaborates on a Screenwriting 101 set up of childhood chums Rogen and Anthony Mackie continuing to meet up on Christmas Eve for the last fifteen years, owing to the need to keep third chum Joseph Gordon-Levitt company, owing to his having lost his parents in a car accident. But this is to be the last such event. Rogen is an expectant father, given a long leash that night – hence the drugs bag – by wife Jillian Bell in recognition that maturity beckons (like, what?) Mackie is a successful American Football player (with an unannounced until later steroid habit). And Levitt is a deadbeat musician guesting as an elf at a hotel and moping over his split with Lizzy Caplan. Oh, and all this time, they’ve held out the hope of the seasonal pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the Nutcracker Ball, but have never been able to procure tickets.

Until now. But first, on their way there, hijinks duly ensue. There’s very little that’s sparklingly original in The Night Before, but the trio have good chemistry, and as importantly, Levine lends the comedic episodes an appropriate touch of the tinsel. True, I never need to see Rogen rapping again. I don’t need to see him vomiting either – it’s Seth, so anything he’s involved in requires maximum grossness – but his retreat from Midnight Mass pleading “We did not kill Jesus. We did not do that” can’t help but raise a smile (his Christmas sweater boasts the Star of Israel). By the time the same gag is being played out at the Nutcracker Ball – their tickets were stolen by Levitt, an act that weirdly never has any comeuppance – it’s growing thin, however (“The Jewish guy crucified the Messiah!”)

Mackie repeatedly encounters the Grinch (Ilana Glazer), who steals his weed, and must face a realisation with regard to the cooler jocks he hangs out with (one that isn’t as enlightened as you’d perhaps expect). Levitt meanwhile, as the romantic lead, picks a fight with some pissy Santas and attempts to get back together with Caplan.

The “showdown” at the Ball exhibits the worst of this Hollywood stoner bros’ club’s capacity for self-indulgence, unfortunately. James Franco appears as “himself”, but with a bi-curious side that lets you know he’s definitely actually the most heterosexual dude ever and that his bad-boy reputation must all be a lot of hot air or he wouldn’t be sending himself up (just ask his accusers). As intolerable as he is, he’s bested/worsted by a self-aggrandising attempt by Miley Cyrus (who I’d been given to understand was an actress before she became a singer) to appear cool and with it and not just an Illuminati stooge and/or clone. These kinds of music star cameos very rarely work. Not everyone can be Bowie in Zoolander.

Even the unqualified bright spot, Michael Shannon as drug dealer Mr Green, intervening periodically like some kind of Ghost of Christmas Whatever Dude and providing the trio with a particular toke specific to their needs, is ultimately over-serviced. Shannon in a non-psycho role is a rare treat, but the no-need-to-show of making him an angel in service to Tracy Morgan’s Santa Claus is the kind of unasked for excess usually reserved by Kevin Smith. The common factor most likely being far too much extra-curricular substance use as a fuel to, and replacement for, inspiration and not enough restraint tapping inspiration sagely on the shoulder. As excessive Christmas fare goes, then, The Night Before is breezily passable, but it can’t hold a candle to A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.