YES MAN

Written by Hombre Divertido

Yes, the formula is obvious and reminiscent of Liar Liar, but this film is not as predictable, and succeeds by simply being more genuine.

Jim Carrey plays Carl Allen, a man who retreated into self-imposed seclusion after suffering through a divorce, routinely says no to any offer that might lead him from his dreary existence.

Carl is curious enough about the life of old friend Nick (John Michael Higgins channeling a young David Leisure) to attend a seminar run by a miscast Terrence Stamp, who motivates Carl into agreeing to say yes to everything, and thus our one-dimensional plot is born.

Generally the situations created by the premise work simply because Carrey keeps his normally outrageous antics in check and plays this character with a sincerity that works for the most part. The occasional return to Carrey’s outrageousness of old, such as the often-seen trailers with him hyped-up on Red Bull or with a face wrapped in scotch tape, actually seem forced and out of place in a film that is generally more low key than what one might expect.

Unfortunately the story takes some turns that just don’t work for anyone that brought their brain into the theater with them. Obviously all the “yesing” can’t reap only success and Carl and his newfound love, Allison (Zoey Deschanel in an understated but endearing performance), can’t just end-up together without overcoming some type of roadblock, but said obstacle is poorly constructed, and it is at this point in the film where the writers clearly ran out of ideas. The turn of events leads to an abrupt and disappointing ending.

It is the performances of the cast and the relatable characters created that makes this 104-minute outing worth your money. The script by Nick Stoller, based on Danny Wallace’s autobiographical book, runs out of steam before it gets to where it should have gone and leaves the audience stranded, if not lost. Considering the simplicity of the premise and the success of the book on which it was based, the writing should have come easier and been better. The unnecessary antics and geriatric sexual encounters are sophomoric and insulting to the audience, and do nothing but cheapen a film that actually has some class.

Recommendation: Jim Carrey may be a bit weathered to play such parts, or the antics may just be tired, but he is still a capable character actor who can be successful when given the right vehicle. This may not quite be it, but there are enough pleasant moments and solid performances to make this worth seeing.

THE NUMBER 23

Written by Hombre Divertido

Sometimes you can appreciate a bad film simply for the effort. For example: Hudson Hawk, was bad, but you had to appreciate the effort put into doing something completely different. Not so for The Number 23.

Jim Carrey plays a dogcatcher who becomes obsessed with a book entitled The Number 23. Now, had we been given a story about a man who becomes obsessed with the number 23, as we are lead to believe by the trailers, we might have had something worth investing our time in. In other words: They should have given us the story in the book that our hero becomes obsessed with, rather than his obsession with said story. Still with me? Well, the movie is more convoluted than this paragraph.

Like a joke that takes too long to get to what should be a good punchline, The Number 23 plods along to a conclusion that had potential, yet falls flat due to the lengthy build-up. At 97 minutes, no movie should seem too long, but the set-up is simply not worth the pay-off.

Directed by Joel Schumacher, the film has an interesting look, and that in itself makes it entertaining to watch for a while. The performances are adequate, but Carrey plays it too cute during the far-too-brief establishment of his character, which makes his transition into Jack Nicholson from The Shining too much of a stretch for this thespian. The talented Virginia Madsen is underutilized in this film, and in the industry as a whole, playing Carrey’s wife. What we do get to see of her is the most enjoyable aspect of this film, as her versatility in dual roles serves to hold our attention more than any other aspect of this film. It is a little unclear if the role of the son is poorly written by Fernley Phillips or acted by Logan Lerman. We can probably thank them both for the annoying distraction.

So, Schumacher attempts to tell us not only the story of a family dealing with the patriarch’s obsession with a book and its similarities to his own life, but the story of the book as well, using dual characterizations to weave the two stories together. A reasonable endeavor poorly executed, and too daunting of a task to pull of in 97 minutes. He should have just stuck with an interesting story of how an obsession with the number 23 impacts the life of a man and his family. Might have been better, could not have been worse.

Just too much wasted opportunity here. Good cast, good concept, good film style.

Recommendation: Don’t pay money for this bomb. Wait! That sentence contains 23 letters! AAAAAAHHHHH! Yeah, didn’t really work in the movie either.