We may have a winner.

I think that was obvious the moment the poster was released.

Technically (and to help the search engine), it's Step Brothers.

Does the embargo still apply? If not, I've got a thing or two to say, but if so ...

Incidentally, Jeff, I thought about you a fair bit while watching this film last night.

I vaguely recall that your reaction to John C. Reilly's first starring role, in Walk Hard, was something along the lines of "I've always thought he should be a leading man ... but this is not the role I imagined him in", and I know that you're a fan of The Visitor, the star of which, Richard Jenkins, is in this film too.

But, like Walk Hard, this is a Judd Apatow movie, with lots of f-words and exposed testicles and so on.

Then again, it is also a Will Ferrell movie, which I know you like. (And sometimes I do too.)

So, I am very curious to see what you make of this film.

Embargos notwithstanding, I think it is safe to say that the opening George W. Bush quote sets the mood very nicely, not least because Ferrell has played Dubya elsewhere and you almost find yourself wishing he would recite that quote himself in this film. At any rate, it fits with the offbeat non-sequiturity of the film very well.

When I saw the trailer for this (I think it was the red band trailer) I couldn't imagine wanting to subject myself to this. Maybe I'm just too old.

I saw it tonight and was pleasantly surprised. This is dangerous, edgy comedy-- more so than any other Will Ferrell movie, anyway, except maybe Old School. It's also the funniest movie he's done since Anchorman. He and Reily are both priceless, and Richard Jenkins actually gets a few of the movie's biggest laughs.

That said... it's essentially a big blur of sex, profanity, violence, and a little male nudity. Anyone wanna bet how much hate mail my CT review is going to prompt?

Peter, I can't wait to see it and get back to you. Ah, but I will have to wait. I leave Saturday for 10 days in Santa Fe, and I won't be going to the movies between now and then, save for tomorrow's X-Files screening. But I *will* see Step Brothers. I love the Ferrell-and-Reilly chemistry.

It is not as high profile as Sex and the City, so it may slip by without a lot of travailing. Yet, between the two, this movie seems like a movie that will be quoted by youths in the church basement and on ski trips, just like I hear youths quote Talladega Nights; I think it has far more potential of affecting the developing spirituality of impressionable congregants.

Josh Hurst wrote:
: That said... it's essentially a big blur of sex, profanity, violence, and a little male nudity. Anyone wanna bet how much hate mail my CT review is going to prompt?

Given my own experience reviewing Apatow films for CT, I'm curious to see what you do with it -- and to hear any stories you might have about the editing process.

If so then 27 is too old, because I'm right there with you.

Fwiw, my review. As far as I can tell, no major changes were made... until the very last paragraph-- er, sentence-- which kinda-sorta has the same gist as my original paragraph, but is for some reason much shortened, and omits a statement I made that, while the vulgarity will be a turn-off to most Christian audiences, it's only fair to acknowledge that the film has some moments of inspiration and craft that deserve to be celebrated.

I wonder sometimes if we Christian critics find ourselves in a sort of reverse-analogous situation to the one Jonathan Rosenbaum talks about in Movie Wars. There, he talks about how most consumer-oriented film critics tend to second-guess their readers, deferring to an assumption about "the masses" by, e.g., singing the praises of the latest Star Wars prequel even though no one thinks it is very good. (Best not to view the film through your own personal lens when there are legions of fanboys whose perspectives matter more than your own, whose perspectives must be "understood" and deferred to, etc.) Similarly, we Christian critics are often compelled, whether by personal instinct or editorial fiat (and when you've worked long enough in the biz, one tends to bleed into the other), to spend a lot of time warning people about "offensive" material in films like this -- much more time, often, than we would probably think is warranted if we were just viewing the film through our own personal lenses. And it's all because we assume the readers want those warnings, rather than because we feel that that is the most important thing to dwell upon. Or so it sometimes seems.

Well, yes, but, based on my experiences reviewing this kind of movie, I think our particular set of readers DOES want those warnings-- even though I suspect most of our readers probably know already that it's a fairly bawdy affair (at least if they're aware of the filmmakers and the rating). Even so, I suspect there'd be some nasty letters if we reviewed it and didn't spend a great deal of time on those issues.

As a side note, I have nothing but unflagging, unfaltering respect for my editor at CT, but, for the record, I personally would never, ever use the phrase "too crass for the masses" in a review.

Ebert:

Ebert wrote an X-rated movie? Golly, the things you learn. Thanks for the link.

The range of reviews on this one is quite impressive.

And yes, Gina, he did: Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, back in 1970 before the Siskel and Ebert program. He's written openly about his work with Russ Meyer throughout his career.

Metacritic scores run from Kyle Smith's 88 to Joe Morgenstern's 0 with some reputable names in green, yellow and red ranges. Whole lot of 50 ratings.

Josh Hurst wrote:
: Well, yes, but, based on my experiences reviewing this kind of movie, I think our particular set of readers DOES want those warnings-- even though I suspect most of our readers probably know already that it's a fairly bawdy affair (at least if they're aware of the filmmakers and the rating).

Well, that's the question, isn't it? DO our readers know these things? Are they more likely, or less likely, than the average person reading a mainstream movie review to catch the references we make to things like "a Judd Apatow movie"? If they are LESS likely to know what that means, then I guess we have to do a lot of unpacking. But each and every time? That begins to get a bit repetitive, I think. Especially if a lot of that info is going to be in the "family" box at the bottom of the review anyway.

: Even so, I suspect there'd be some nasty letters if we reviewed it and didn't spend a great deal of time on those issues.

Quite possibly.

I am now vaguely reminded of a time, about ten years ago, when Jeff and I wrote separate reviews of The Dreamlife of Angels (mine for a newspaper, his for a website, IIRC) and we had to deal with the fact that it was a really powerful movie, indeed a very spiritual movie, and yet it had a sex scene that we both knew our readers needed to be made aware of, lest they have problems with that sort of thing, or lest they "stumble", etc. Fortunately, it was possible to talk ABOUT the sex scene in a way that underscored the themes of the movie and the way the cinematic techniques in that scene accentuated those themes; there was nothing prurient about the film's treatment of the sex scene -- quite the opposite, I would argue -- but you were still aware that the actors were naked together, and obviously for some people that will be a problem. So I devoted, like, maybe a paragraph to that, just to give my readers fair warning. But I also wondered if I had made a mountain out of a molehill in doing so -- surely no mainstream critic would have been compelled to write such a thing. And my worries seemed to be confirmed when a letter came to the editor, from a guy who had been struggling with sex addiction, asking how dare I recommend that film. Now, I don't think the guy actually SAW the film ... he just saw that paragraph and wondered how I could promote a film that included a scene with that sort of content. So maybe my paragraph served its purpose and warned someone AWAY from the film who really needed to avoid seeing it. But at the same time, man, there is So Much More to talk about with a film like that, it's a pain to have to get stuck on that sort of detail.

That anecdote may be neither here nor there, in the case of this thread, since Apatow films very rarely even aspire to, let alone achieve, the significance of a film like The Dreamlife of Angels. But there is a similarity, I think, in the wrestling we do when we highlight stuff that wouldn't normally be highlighted if it weren't for the fact that it's going to stick out like a sore, sore thumb for some of our readers and therefore we need to give them some warning ...

: As a side note, I have nothing but unflagging, unfaltering respect for my editor at CT, but, for the record, I personally would never, ever use the phrase "too crass for the masses" in a review.

Heh, I wondered about that. Ever since the word "crass" was added to my use of the words "Judd Apatow film" (in a review of a non-Apatow film), I have tended to notice whenever that word appears in other CT reviews, especially of Apatow films.

Oh, and FWIW, Jeffrey Wells says the movie is 'Not Funny, Man.'

Me? I found the phrase "aggressively stupid" wafting through my mind at various points through the film -- though the film has nothing in common with Walden Media's Around the World in 80 Days, which prompted SDG to use that phrase a few years ago, and which is what I think of whenever I think of that phrase nowadays. But I also laughed a fair bit, and indeed, I had tears in my eyes when we got to the scene in the office with the guy going "Pow!" all the time. A part of me felt like I had been pummeled into laughing -- but I did, I did.

So, make of that what you will.

Well, yeah. Of course it's aggressively stupid. It's an Apatow/McKay/Ferrell joint. That's the, um, charm of many such movies (maybe not Knocked Up, but certainly Anchorman, Talladega Nights, etc.) I suspect that at least some of the filmmakers (Ferrell, Reily) would wear that as a badge of honor.

Now, whether that makes it a good movie is an entirely different question, though, like you, I laughed quite a bit. And the sold-out audience I saw it with was in stitches the whole time, which I try to take into consideration when I review movies like this; it's very much a populist, crowd-pleaser of a movie, so I think reviews should address the question of how well it succeeds at, well, pleasing crowds.

Josh Hurst wrote:
: And the sold-out audience I saw it with . . .

"Sold" out? Wouldn't this have been a free promotional screening?

: . . . was in stitches the whole time, which I try to take into consideration when I review movies like this; it's very much a populist, crowd-pleaser of a movie . . .

Another reason why I wondered about the phrase "too crass for the masses" -- the "masses" do seem to like this stuff.

: . . . so I think reviews should address the question of how well it succeeds at, well, pleasing crowds.

I agree, to a point, but in a case like this, you could then easily find yourself triangulating and second-guessing on multiple levels -- deferring to the readers who want to know all the things that they would find offensive in the film, and deferring to the readers who laughed and laughed even though you, yourself, might not have.

I also find myself thinking back to The Love Guru, which is the most recent example I can think of where the crowd at the promo screening seemed to laugh quite a bit, and then there were all these scathing reviews saying how unfunny, indeed anti-funny, the movie was. Did the crowds at other promo screenings NOT laugh? Were the critics actively rebelling AGAINST the crowds that laughed? And would it necessarily be a bad thing if they did? Then again, were the critics vindicated by that film's box-office failure? Then again again, should it make a difference to a critic's assessment of a film whether the film has widespread appeal or more limited appeal? When we talk about "crowd" pleasing, are we referring to the crowd that is actually there in the theatre, or to the crowds of people who are somewhere outside the theatre? Etc., etc., etc.

My closest friend and I watched Step Brothers last night. He commented that it reminded him of reading a Far Side comic book, because there was a rolling effect. What he means is that taken on their own, a lot of Far Side comics fall flat, but if one starts at the beginning of the book, and read straight through, by the thirtieth page, one can enter a place where all the Far Side comics are funny, even though he admits, if he had to look at just one individual panel, it may or may not click. The same is true of the movie. I found myself drawn in, and once I was there, I laughed hard and often. I don't know if I would have if I saw the same scene out of context, or if I was not somehow drawn in.

Overall, I was surprised, for I went into the movie thinking, "Ugh, this only had 53% positive reviews from Rotten Tomatoes" And I left the movie thinking, "This only had 53% positive reviews from Rotten Tomatoes?" The question that occurred in my mind is, "Why is Step Brothers, to some extent, panned, but Borat is given critical acclaim?"

The first thirty minutes or so were pretty funny. But around the halfway mark, I lost interest. It's a one-joke film, but once you see Ferrell and Reilly do their schtick a couple of times, it gets really old.

I'm glad I waited for Netflix on this one.

This is possibly the worst movie I've seen in a year.

I didn't care about the characters even remotely, and therefore, their situations were not funny. I need to care about people a little to be able to laugh at them. And there was no one even remotely endearing. Of course, the primary concept of the film had me wondering "who are these guys?" Why would these men still live at home and act like children at times and adults at other times.

There was no consistent logic to this film (believe it or not, another important ingredient to most comedy). If the universe they occupied was strange or even 1 degree outside of reality then the main characters' ridiculousness would've worked. In Napolean Dynomite, for example, their was a strangeness to the entire film that amde the absurd characters work.