DOLEMITE IS MY NAME (2019) – Comedic Bio-Pic Features Eddie Murphy At His Best

0

dolemite is my name

Conventional wisdom is that Eddie Murphy deserved an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of Rudy Ray Moore in the Netflix film DOLEMITE IS MY NAME (2019).

After finally catching up with this one, I heartily agree.  This is Murphy’s best work in years. That being said, while I agree that Murphy could easily have been nominated, I’m still glad Joaquin Phoenix won the award for his lead role in JOKER (2019), as for me, his was the best performance of the year.

But back to DOLEMITE IS MY NAME, a movie I liked a lot. It’s a bio pic of Rudy Ray Moore, who after years of struggling to make his name in show business, changed his name and took on a new persona, Dolemite, leading to best-selling comedy albums and eventually a string of successful 1970s blaxploitation movies. As such, DOLEMITE IS MY NAME is also quite funny, because Rudy was a funny guy, as were his antics.

When DOLEMITE IS MY NAME opens, Rudy (Eddie Murphy) is stuck working in a record store and can’t get his own records played on the radio to save his life. He feels increasingly frustrated that he has worked his butt off with nothing to show for it. But when he hears a street person telling a series of jokes in a sing-song fashion, he realizes that this man and others like him are a treasure trove for material. So Rudy visits them on the streets and writes down their stories and their jokes, and he turns their source material into his own original act, creating a new character in the process, the charismatic Dolemite.

He’s an instant sensation at his local stand-up comedy venue, and then things just take off from there, leading to comedic record deals, and eventually movies.

Eddie Murphy is right at home playing Rudy Ray Moore and his alter ego Dolemite. Murphy is a natural at capturing Rudy’s raunchy comedic style since it fits right into Murphy’s own style of comedy back in his heyday. Better yet, Murphy nails the dramatic elements here as well. Early on, he does a great job showing Rudy’s frustrations with life, that he just can’t seem to catch a break, and he isn’t getting any younger. Likewise, after he has achieved success and has become a “star,” Murphy portrays Rudy as a man who never forgot his roots. He doesn’t become a jerk, and he treats his fans well. Murphy’s Rudy is a guy to be admired.

Wesley Snipes and Chris Rock are also in the cast and their presence is felt. This is actually the first time that Murphy and Snipes have ever made a movie together. They share some fun moments, as Snipes plays D’Urville Martin, who directed Dolemite’s first movie, and the two don’t always see eye to eye, which makes for some entertaining sequences.

Da’Vine Joy Randolph gives one of the best performances in the movie as Lady Reed, a performer who Rudy “discovers.” Their scenes together are some of the best in the film. Randolph enjoys lots of comedic moments and some dramatic ones, like when she thanks Rudy for giving her a chance, grateful that he overlooked her large size and didn’t let that stop him from promoting her.

Kodi Smit-McPhee is the film student Rudy hires to be his director of photography. Smit-McPhee has been in a bunch of movies in his young career, and my favorite remains his portrayal of the boy Owen in the exceptional vampire movie LET ME IN (2010) starring Chloe Grace-Moretz and directed by Matt Reeves. Sure, it’s a remake of LET THE RIGHT ONE IN (2008), which many people prefer, but I like LET ME IN a lot. Smit-McPhee is excellent in it, and plus it’s a Hammer Film!

Director Craig Brewer really gives this one a 1970s look and feel and successfully recaptures the essence of Rudy’s original Dolemite movies. Things slow down a bit during the film’s second half, but other than this, DOLEMITE IS MY NAME is an enjoyable piece of filmmaking, as long as you don’t mind lots of vulgar language.

The screenplay by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski is ripe with coarse language, and there’s plenty of nudity as well, all capturing the 1970s blaxploitation feel. It also tells a noteworthy story and portrays Rudy Ray Moore as decent guy whose years of hard work eventually pay off. The movie is also hilariously funny.

I liked DOLEMITE IS MY NAME a lot. It tells a worthwhile story, features one of Eddie Murphy’s best performances in years, and in addition to being an informative biography of Rudy Ray Moore is exceedingly funny as well.

If you’re indoors social distancing looking for a movie to watch, DOLEMITE IS MY NAME is a worthy addition to your movie queue.

—END—

INVASION OF THE CORONAVIRUS

1

theaters closed

 

As I sit  down to write this morning on Sunday, March 22, 2020, I am not penning my usual movie review of the latest theatrical release, and the reason I’m not doing this is all the movie theaters in my area are closed.

As they are for most of you. As are many other businesses. And even if they were open, we couldn’t go to them, because we are practicing social distancing and staying at home.

And we’re doing these things because of the unprecedented spread of the novel coronavirus, otherwise known as COVID-19.

No, this is not the plot of a new science fiction movie. This is all very real.

So, I thought it best that before I continue writing this blog as if nothing has happened, and I will very soon, that I take a moment to pause, reflect, and think about why it is that life suddenly has changed for all of us.

And then I’ll get right back to writing this blog, writing about movies, especially horror movies, and returning to business as usual. Fortunately, writing a blog is a solitary endeavor that is not impacted by social distancing. So, the blog and the writing will continue.

But first—.

What is happening right now is not normal. Nor should it become the new normal. We should do everything in our power to make sure that what is happening now won’t happen again. Ever.

Oh, I’m not saying we won’t have other pandemics to deal with. We will. The experts say as much, and I believe them.

What I’m talking about is preparation.

Right now, to slow the spread of COVID-19, people are being asked to stay home from work, to not congregate in groups of ten or more, and some states here in the U.S. have mandated this. In fact, I’d wager to guess that this will be the wave of the immediate future, that the majority of states will follow suit and declare the same mandate.

When I’m not writing about movies or writing horror fiction, I’m a middle school English teacher. Students can no longer come to school, and like other schools, we are now teaching remotely, which with today’s available technology, is actually quite cool, that my students and I can all see and speak to each other at the same time from different locations. That being said, I wish this change hadn’t been forced on them. They deserve better.

I’m a firm believer in being prepared.  Whether I’m teaching an English class or directing a school play, I am preparing way in advance. With our drama program, for example, I spend months preparing the students for the performance, and I consider worst case scenarios, for instance, that a student may be ill the night of the performance and unable to perform, and I have a plan to deal with it. I’ve actually had this happen, and thanks to our preparation efforts, other students have stepped in and taken over the role. Likewise, when the week of the show arrives, the students are prepared and ready to go, and while nerves are natural, they are able to relax and approach the performance with a cool confidence knowing that we have prepared for everything and pretty much nothing will catch us off guard, and if it does, because of our preparation, we can make adjustments on the fly. I’ve done this as well, doing rewrites in between acts to fix a problem.

Now, I’m not suggesting that preparing for a small middle school play is similar to preparing for something as huge as COVID-19. What I’m saying is regardless of the endeavor there is value to preparation. It goes a long way.

Supposedly, our federal government knew of the dangers of COVID-19 as early as January and little or no action was taken until now. I do not intend to get political here. Instead, since what I am hearing is the main reason states are shutting down isn’t only because this is a deadly and contagious virus, but more so, because our present health care system is not prepared to hospitalize the potential number of patients needing hospitalization at the same time, because the stockpile of medical supplies— which in years past used to be stored in hospitals but in recent years cost saving decisions opted against this type of storage— is not there, I’m simply suggesting that it would seem to me that if the federal government knew this was coming, then preparations to stockpile the necessary supplies should have begun back in January.

My point in all this? If being prepared means fewer deaths and less social distancing and fewer businesses closing, I would certainly hope that future administrations would learn from the mistakes made here in 2020 and fix them, so that the next time, we’re not telling school children they have to stay in their houses and not interact with anyone else other than family members in their household for potentially months at a time. If this can be prevented by early preparation, then we need to make sure this happens in the future.

And that’s my message this morning. This is not normal.  And our leaders should be working as hard they can— as should we—- to make sure this does not happen again.

In the meantime, since it is happening now, and we’re pretty much all practicing social distancing, I will continue to write columns on movies, especially horror movies. There’ll be columns on classic movies of yesteryear, and perhaps some new releases that are available streaming at home.

I will continue to have fun writing about these movies, and sharing these columns with you, in the hope that you will continue to have fun reading them.

Stay healthy, happy, and positive, be kind, support one another, and most of all, stay prepared.

As always, thanks for reading!

—Michael

 

EMMA (2020)- New Film Version of Jane Austen’s Novel Lacks Energy And Wit

1

Emma

I generally enjoy period pieces. For instance, LITTLE WOMEN (2019) was my favorite movie last year.

However, today’s movie, EMMA (2020), based on the novel by Jane Austen, in spite of its fabulous costumes and set design, and decent acting, just didn’t do it for me.

There was just something lacking in this new version. I’d say its biggest flaw was its lack of comedic timing. When a film that is supposed to be light and fun struggles with its humor, that’s a big deal. In addition, its characterizations and dialogue were also sub par.

EMMA takes place in nineteenth century England and is about well-to-do Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor-Joy) who likes to play romantic matchmaker for her family and friends. She means well, and the story follows her attempts to put those folks together who she believes should be in love, but more often than not, things don’t go as planned.

Neither does the script by Eleanor Catton. Surprisingly, most of the characters simply didn’t come to life. Their personalities were subdued, and most of their dialogue was lacking. In fact, there is something subdued about the entire production.

The dialogue is quiet and flat and barely generates a chuckle let alone a laugh. And unlike last year’s LITTLE WOMEN, it barely has anything relevant to say to today’s audiences.

The cast does try its best. I like Anya Taylor-Joy a lot. She stood out in THE WITCH (2015) and her performance was one of my favorite parts of that movie. Here, as Emma, she’s effective, but she has few moments in the film that resonate. Her Emma just doesn’t generate much emotion.

Johnny Flynn is very good as George Knightley, Emma’s best friend and the man the audience knows is best for her, yet she’s so busy matchmaking she doesn’t seem to be able to see it. But like Anya Taylor-Joy, Johnny Flynn encounters the same problem in that there’s just not a lot of key moments in the film for his character.

Mia Goth delivers probably my favorite performance in the film, as the bubbly Harriet Smith. In a supporting role, she enjoys numerous fine moments in the movie, and her character is one of the more engaging characters in the film. This comes as no surprise. She was equally as memorable in the underappreciated horror movie A CURE FOR WELLNESS (2016).

Miranda Hart was also memorable as Miss Bates. She provides the film with most of its comic relief, but again, it’s of the subtle variety.

And Bill Nighy makes his presence known as Emma’s father Mr. Woodhouse, but like the rest of the cast, he too underplays his role.

Director Autumn de Wilde showcases vivid cinematography, wonderful costumes, and opulent sets. But he doesn’t seem to take full advantage of his actors, nor give this film a strong sense of pacing. The running time for EMMA is two hours and four minutes. It felt much longer than that.

Sure, there are a couple of moments that work well, like when George asks Harriet to dance. This scene actually generated some real emotion. But other than these few instances, this version of EMMA falls flat and simply doesn’t carry enough oomph to keep its audience interested.

In one sequence, Mr. Woodhouse falls asleep while Emma and George are talking. I was trying really hard not to join him.

—END—

THE HUNT (2020) – Ugly Thriller Fails At Both Horror and Satire

0
null

Crystal (Betty Gilpin) fights back in THE HUNT (2020)

THE HUNT (2020), the new thriller by writer Damon Lindelof, who was part of the team that brought us the classic television show LOST (2004-2010), and who also wrote the screenplay for WORLD WAR Z (2013), is yet another of those horror movies featuring the unpleasant concept of humans hunting humans.

It’s what we saw in THE PURGE movies, and in last year’s clever dark comedy, READY OR NOT (2019), which starred Samara Weaving as a bride hunted by her new husband’s family on her wedding night. While I enjoyed READY OR NOT and its deliciously dark sense of humor, I’ve never been a fan of the PURGE movies. They simply haven’t worked for me.

Neither did today’s movie, THE HUNT.

The premise in THE HUNT is that a group of people are abducted from their everyday lives, and when they awake, they find themselves in a clearing surrounded by woods only to be immediately shot at by unseen hunters who have declared open season on humans. This actually sounds scarier than what the movie ultimately becomes, and that’s because THE HUNT suffers from a serious case of the stupids.

More on this in a moment.

It doesn’t take long for nearly every character in the film to meet a grisly and horrific death. We’re talking in the first ten minutes of the movie. Which leaves one character Crystal (Betty Gilpin) to stand her ground and fight back. Fortunately, Crystal is the one interesting character in the entire movie, and Betty Gilpin’s performance here is the main reason to see this one. Otherwise, it would be a complete disaster. That being said, it’s still pretty bad.

See, the premise here in THE HUNT is a group of liberal elites who spend their days talking about fighting racism, taking care of the environment, and other “liberal” issues decide to take it upon themselves to help the world by ridding it of some of its less desirables, people of the opposite political persuasion- in short, people they see as rednecks.

Or so it seems. Eventually we learn the real reason why these victims were selected. It’s a very specific reason and one that really strains credibility. In fact, it’s flat out stupid.

The liberal elite hunters come off as caricatures rather than real people, which really hurts this movie. Likewise, the victims are also exaggerated stereotypes. Both sides are portrayed as pigheaded bigots, which I suppose is the point of the movie, a point that would have been more effectively made had its characters behaved like real people rather than cliches.

The screenplay by Damon Lindelof and Nick Cuse also can’t make up its mind whether or not it wants to be a straight thriller or a satire. Its over the top dialogue definitely has it leaning towards the satire end of the spectrum, but the writing isn’t sharp enough to pull this off. Not only didn’t I laugh, but I was hardly even amused. Attempts at humor failed left and right. No pun intended.

And then the premise just gets dumber and dumber. When we finally meet the person behind the hunt, Athena (Hilary Swank), and learn her back story, it asks the audience to accept a plot point that is absolutely ludicrous.

The climactic fight scene between Crystal and Athena is a good one, and one of the bright spots of the movie. But there aren’t too many positives here. Director Craig Zobel keeps the blood flowing throughout, but few scenes have any resonance. The over the top violence seems to be going for laughs, but it doesn’t really work.

The only reason to see THE HUNT is for Betty Gilpin’s performance. She’s really good, and Crystal is the only character in the film who doesn’t wear her political views on her sleeve. The rest of the characters all do, and none of them seem all that realistic.

The film is a sloppy attempt to make a statement about the divisions in our current society, but it completely fails. The writing isn’t sharp, the characters come off as phony, and the humor doesn’t work.

THE HUNT is an ugly movie which most likely will be attacked by both sides of the political spectrum as doing a hatchet job on their respective camps. And in this case, both sides would be correct.

—END–

Netflix’ DRACULA (2020) – New Mini-Series’ Take On Stoker’s Novel Difficult to Digest

1

Dracula - episode 2

DRACULA (2020), a three-part miniseries available now on Netflix, is brought to us by the same folks who brought us SHERLOCK (2010-2017), which starred Benedict Cumberbatch.

Their take on Bram Stokers’ iconic novel, one of the most revered horror novels in the English language, and one of my personal favorites, is one that pushes the envelope at every turn, so much so that for Dracula purists like myself, the end result is not easy to digest.

That’s not to say that I didn’t like DRACULA. I did. Or, at least parts of it.

But there were more parts that I didn’t like, aspects that made it clear that the series’ makers were sacrificing story and truth for ingenuity and chaos. In short, the goal here seems to have been to make as many dramatic and in-your-face changes as possible to make this a fresh and original take on the tale. The trouble is, at the end of the day, there’s not a whole heck of a lot left that resembles Stoker’s original novel.

This in itself I don’t have a problem with. I’m open to re-imaginings. The problem with this reboot is the bold changes get in the way of the story, and that’s never a good thing. It’s like being aware that an actor is acting. Here, it clearly seemed that changes were being made just for the sake of being different. In short, I think the filmmakers were simply trying too hard.

DRACULA opens with a very ill Jonathan Harker (John Heffernan) at a convent being interviewed by Sister Agatha (Dolly Wells), who wants to know as much as possible about his experience at Castle Dracula. Now, in Stoker’s novel, Harker does convalesce in a convent after he escapes from his horrifying ordeal at Castle Dracula, so I thought this was a neat way to open the mini-series.

The events at Castle Dracula then unfold as Harker recounts his story, and it’s in this telling that we first meet Count Dracula (Claes Bang). This is all well and good until it’s revealed that Sister Agatha’s last name is Van Helsing, meaning that in this interpretation, Van Helsing is a nun.

Okay. Stop right here.

Van Helsing is a nun.

Let that sink in for a moment.

My first thought was, okay, a bit dramatic, but I can live with this. I’m on board. I’m ready for this interpretation. But it doesn’t stop there. Van Helsing in this DRACULA is hardly the Van Helsing we’ve seen before. Sure, she’s Dracula’s adversary, but barely, and like other aspects of this version, as the interpretation goes along, it becomes unrelatable, and that simply gets in the way of good storytelling.

So, Part I is mostly the tale of Jonathan Harker’s ordeal at Castle Dracula. Part 2 covers Dracula’s voyage on the ship the Demeter on his way to London, and then Part 3 gets wild and crazy. Without giving too much away, if you’re familiar with Hammer’s DRACULA A.D. 1972 (1972) you know which direction the third episode takes.

There’s no doubt that Claes Bang’s interpretation of Dracula was meant to be fresh and original, and it is definitely unlike previous takes on the character. Bang’s Dracula has a wise-cracking quip about everything, and he seems to have walked off the set of a Marvel superhero movie. He’d be right at home exchanging barbs with Iron Man and Doctor Strange as he battled them for supremacy of the world. In short, I didn’t like this interpretation. For me, Dracula works best when he is flat-out evil, which is why I’ve always enjoyed every Christopher Lee performance. His Dracula is always evil.

That’s not to say that Bang plays Dracula as a nice guy. His Dracula is definitely a villain, but he’s just a little too colorful for my tastes. That being said, Bang does deliver a powerful performance which grew on me with each episode. So, for me, it’s a case where I thought the actor did a tremendous job but the writing tweaked the character too much for my liking.

Likewise, Dolly Wells does a nice job as Sister Agatha Van Helsing, but again, the writing took this character and did things with her that diminished her impact. For starters, Van Helsing simply isn’t as powerful a presence here as Dracula. That in itself is problematic.

I can’t say then that I was a fan of the teleplay by Mark Gatis and Steven Moffat, where changes seem to have been made solely for the purpose of being different without taking into consideration how it would affect the story. Still, it’s an incredibly ambitious screenplay. There is just so much thrown into this mini-series. That in itself is impressive. But sadly most of it didn’t work for me.

The rest of the cast is okay. The only other cast member who stood out for me was Lydia West as Lucy, who shows up in Part 3. When Dracula finally meets Lucy in Part 3, it makes for some of the most compelling moments in the entire miniseries. I loved this part, mostly because of West’s performance here, as she and Bang share some sensual chemistry, but sadly, this sequence doesn’t last all that long, so as good as it is, it’s far too brief.

Then there’s Mina, here played by Morfydd Clark. Mina is a central character in the novel, and she’s always been one of my favorite characters in the novel. Few movie versions have ever done her justice. In the novel, she’s probably the strongest character, but in the movies, she’s generally reduced to being a victim who needs to be saved by Van Helsing. In this version, she’s barely a blip on the proceedings, which is too bad.

I did like the way this one looked. A lot. Especially the look of Castle Dracula in Part 1. Evidently it’s the same castle exterior that was used in the original NOSFERATU (1922). How cool is that?

I also enjoyed the homages to other classic Draculas, especially to the Hammer Draculas. Early on in Part 1, Dracula is depicted as an old man, as he is in the novel, and the look here resembles Gary Oldman in BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA (1992). Later Dracula’s guise resembles Christopher Lee, and then in Part 2, while he’s on the Demeter, his costume mirrors that of Bela Lugosi. I appreciated these touches.

And for Hammer Film fans, there’s an Easter Egg for DRACULA A.D. 1972, and for HORROR OF DRACULA (1958), specifically that film’s classic finale. So I give credit to directors Johnny Campbell, Paul McGuigan, and Damon Thomas for these moments.

But overall, DRACULA struggled to hold my attention. I found its dramatic revisions distracting and far less captivating than the story told in Stoker’s novel.

And while I can comfortably say it was not the version for me, I have a feeling that somewhere down the line I’ll watch it again.

Some day.

 

When I’m ready to once more entertain the notion that Van Helsing is a nun and Dracula a comic book villain.

—END—

 

IN THE SPOOKLIGHT: WAR OF THE GARGANTUAS (1966)

0

war of the gargantuas - two gargantuas

WAR OF THE GARGANTUAS (1966) has always been one of my favorite Toho giant monsters movies.

One reason for this is nostalgia. In addition to its regular play on the popular Saturday afternoon Creature Double Feature back in the day, it also received a much-hyped prime time showing on our local UHF Channel 56 in Boston that had all the neighborhood kids, myself included, chirping about it before, during, and after it was aired.

But the main reason is it’s a darn good movie. Well, at least among films in the Toho canon, and this is no surprise since it was directed by arguably their top director, Ishiro Honda, who also directed the original GODZILLA (1954), THE MYSTERIANS (1957), KING KONG VS. GODZILLA (1962), and DESTROY ALL MONSTERS (1968) to name just a few.

I was recently able to view the original Japanese version of WAR OF THE GARGANTUAS, which includes the Frankenstein references that were removed from the film when it was released in the U.S. back in 1970.

And there are Frankenstein references because WAR OF THE GARGANTUAS is a sequel to Toho’s Frankenstein flick, FRANKENSTEIN CONQUERS THE WORLD (1965). I’m not sure why the Frankenstein connection was initially severed, but it’s too bad it was done, because the film works even better as a Frankenstein movie.

The story of a giant Frankenstein monster and his “brother” is much more intriguing than a story about two random gargantuas. And WAR OF THE GARGANTUAS is a better movie than FRANKENSTEIN CONQUERS THE WORLD, which means it’s one of those rare cases where the sequel is an improvement on the original.

In WAR OF THE GARGANTUAS, a mysterious monster is terrorizing the countryside attacking and eating people. It is also avoiding detection, as it always disappears quickly after it attacks, preventing the authorities from being able to stop it. It’s assumed that this is the same creature which escaped from the lab of Dr. Paul Stewart (Russ Tamblyn) and his fellow scientists. Of course, in the original version, this was the Frankenstein monster from FRANKENSTEIN CONQUERS THE WORLD. Dr. Stewart doesn’t think it’s the same creature, because the one which escaped from his lab was peaceful and would never harm humans.

It’s later discovered that there are two gargantuas, the original who escaped from Stewart’s lab, and a new more menancing one, who is believed to be a sort of clone from the first. These two behemoths eventually do battle. Hence, the war of the gargantuas.

The best part of WAR OF THE GARGANTUAS is that there are lots of scenes featuring the gargantuas. In lesser Toho movies, you have to sit through long stretches of usually boring dialogue and bland characters while you wait for the monsters to make their appearances. Not so here with WAR OF THE GARGANTUAS. These creatures are in this movie a lot. There is a ton of giant monster action.

And director Ishiro Honda, who also wrote the screenplay,  fills this one with a lot of memorable scenes. The film opens with a frightening sequence where a slimy looking giant octopus attacks a ship, only to be deterred by an even scarier looking gargantua, who makes quick work of the octopus before turning his attention to the crew of the ship which he promptly consumes for a yummy dessert

There are a bunch of rather frightening scenes in this one. In spite of this being a silly giant monster movie, there are some dark moments. The scene where a group of hikers encounter the gargantua waiting for them in a dense fog has always been one that gives me the shivers. Likewise, in another sequence on a boat, the gargangtua is seen staring up at the passengers from under the water. We’re gonna need a bigger boat!

And the battle scenes here are second to none. There’s an excellent sequence where the gargantua comes out of the water to attack an airport, and of course, the climactic battle between the two garagantuas is a keeper.

If you’re a fan of the Toho movies, this is one film you do not want to miss, and if you’ve never seen a Toho film, this is a good one to start with, although I do recommend watching FRANKENSTEIN CONQUERS THE WORLD first, since this is a sequel to that movie.

All in all, if you love giant monster movie action and want to see an A-list director at the top of his game, then check out WAR OF THE GARGANTUAS.

It’s a gargantuan good time!

—END—

 

 

 

 

 

IMPRACTICAL JOKERS: THE MOVIE (2020) – Big Screen Treatment of Hilarious TV Show Funny But Negligible

0

impractical-jokers-the-movie-2020

I love the TV show IMPRACTICAL JOKERS (2011-Present).

I don’t think I’ve ever watched an episode without laughing out loud. It’s that funny. Its gimmick of four lifelong friends- “Q” (Brian Quinn), Joe (Joe Gatto), Murr (James Murray) and Sal (Sal Vulcano)- who have to compete in dares designed by each other, all involving potentially embarrassing interactions with unsuspecting innocent folks in public places, makes it a sort of modern-day version of the classic TV show “Candid Camera” and guarantees uproarious laughter in every episode. If you want to laugh, IMPRACTICAL JOKERS delivers every time.

Now comes IMPRACTICAL JOKERS: THE MOVIE, which places the four friends and their antics on the big screen, which begs the question, why go to the movies and pay big bucks for a movie ticket when you can see these guys every day on TV for free? I don’t think the movie satisfactorily answers this question.

The movie has its moments. Make no mistake, there are parts where I laughed out loud, but simply put, it’s not as good as the show, and that’s because the show is nonstop hilarity, whereas here in the movie, there’s also a plot, and not a very good one.

The “plot” involves Paula Abdul, of all people, as the movie opens in 1992 with the four guys crashing one of her concerts and getting on stage and incurring her wrath. It’s an opening bit that just doesn’t work. Years later, they meet Abdul again, and she’s forgotten the incident and instead gives them tickets to her next show in Florida, but she only gives them three tickets. The guys decide to take a road trip to Florida, and on their way compete, and the loser of their competition doesn’t get to go to the concert. That’s the plot. Pretty lame.

Not that I was expecting an Oscar-type screenplay here, but the issue is the meh storyline simply detracts from the guys’ antics and continually slows the movie down. I mean, some of the situations here are hilarious, like the bit where the guys interview for a job with the Atlanta Hawks. Joe’s interview is priceless. I nearly fell out of my seat.

There are other hysterical bits as well, like when the guys are stopped on the side of the road, and they have to flag down cars to get help, but have to do and say what the other guys tell them.

But each time the movie returns to the plot, the film slows down. Other added elements don’t work either, like Murr’s mysterious nightlife. Each time the guys open his hotel room door, there’s a different situation taking place inside his room. Not exactly uproarious material.

The movie element causes other problems as well. The strength of the show is its humor is real, the people on camera and their reactions are real. That’s also what’s happening here in the movie, except during the plot points, obviously there are other actors involved, and it blurs the line between what is written and what is genuine.

Simply put, the show is better than this movie. That being said, Brian Quinn, Joe Gatto, James Murray, and Sal Vulcano remain fun to watch and even though this movie is not as good as the show, it still provides lots of laughs.

IMPRACTICAL JOKERS: THE MOVIE will satisfy fans of the show, although since it doesn’t really add anything new or better, there’s little reason to go out and see it. The show is superior, and it’s available to watch at home. But if you can’t get enough of the Jokers, then feel free to check it out. You will laugh.

Likewise, if you’ve never seen the show, the movie is still fun, but again you’d be better served to watch the show at home for free.

IMPRACTICAL JOKERS: THE MOVIE has its moments, but to watch this movie instead of the show, is— rather impractical.

—END—