The Change-Up

Loyal Readers,

It would appear that I have seen my first piece of art/culture. I had the pleasure (misfortune) of seeing "The Change-Up" by David Dobkin. The film stars Jason Bateman as Jamie Lee Curtis (everyone's favorite actress from "Trading Places" except for Dan Akroyd, Eddie Murphy, and the two old brothers that facilitate the place trading) and Ryan Reynolds as Lindsay Lohan (the Hollywood starlet with a colorful history known for trading places with her British-accented doppleganger in some crappy Disney movie I saw when I was too young to have taste).

TANGENT ALERT: We've come to that time of the post where I go on an unrelated tangent. This happens every so often, so get ready.

It would appear that every five to seven years Hollywood gets profoundly lazy. The writers (whose names will forever be lost in who-gives-a-crap-because-they-aren't-directors obscurity) rack their brains for some inkling of an idea, but it is to no avail. Eventually, they say to each other, "Hey, America hasn't seen one of those classic swapped-identity movies recently. Let's plug a couple characters into this here fancy "Script-o-Matic" formula machine and see what delicious 'hilarity' it churns out!" And if this is bad, what's worse is we keep going to see these movies again and again and again. I hate to think I have to be the voice of reason (and you readers probably hate to think that too) but we need to stop seeing swapped-identity movies. I know they look funny in the previews and we think to ourselves, "How could this possibly not be funny?" but it is possible. They can not be funny.

END OF TANGENT

So the movie starts with Jason Bateman as a rising attorney who is, surprise, a workaholic and Ryan Reynolds as his best friend from childhood who happens to be...a worthless bum. Now my first impression of this situation was: "Golly, these two fellas couldn't be more opposite. I mean, Jason Bateman is going somewhere in his life, and Ryan Reynolds is...a worthless bum. Why on Earth would Bateman still want to associate with Reynolds after all that he hasn't been through?" Little did I know (sarcasm) that Bateman had a lesson to learn from Reynolds in the end. The movie develops in that it becomes readily apparent that Bateman is working too hard at getting ahead in the world to the extent that he is neglecting his very attractive wife, Leslie Mann, and his kids, a ballet-dancing, brainy girl and two shitting, under-one twins. Reynolds is played off as a pot-smoking, going-nowhere, sleeps-with-anything...worthless bum. The two leads have a night on the town which ends in both complaining about their lives and wishing they had each others. The conversation ends with both men pissing in a fountain that swaps their lives "magically." The magic is never explained. I saw the wizard enthusiasts in the crowd get very frustrated by this fact. Wands went limp.

The next morning both men wake up in each others' bodies and (ta-da) they got exactly what they wished for. Now, this is the point of the movie where hilarity ensues...allegedly. Hilarity does not ensue in actuality. The film gets a few cheap laughs with wailing babies, horny pregnant women, a bad experience with Thai food, and the filming of an "adult" film. Now, with a combination of events such as this, it would naturally be assumed that only laughter would be heard in the theatre. This, unfortunately, was not so. The film had all of the elements of the perfect storm, but it somehow fell short. I am befuddled and a tad bit disappointed.

Of course, the film would not be complete without a few moments of learning and lessons and the typical Hollywood attempt at philosophy. Both Bateman and Reynolds learn about what people really think of them while they are in the clever disguises of each other. If that is a bit confusing, let me clear it up. Bateman, in Reynold's body, learns that his wife is frustrated with how their marriage is going. Reynolds, in Bateman's body, learns his father is actually proud of him (if that's possible) but just wishes he wasn't such a quitter. They both learn that they can be better people if they just try their dandiest! (assume the last sentence was said in a heavily condescending tone) The moral of the story apparently is that the only way someone will ever really learn about themselves is if they have the fortuitous opportunity to switch bodies with their best friend and start asking around about themselves.

The best character in the entire film, and the one I feel didn't get a fair amount of screen time, is Alan Arkin. He plays Reynold's dad and has no problem calling Reynolds a schmuck. I think Arkin is just a great actor. He killed it in "The In-Laws" and "Little Miss Sunshine," and I feel like he is fantastically good at telling people how it is. Unfortunately, his character is relegated to the back-burner and isn't allowed to really shine. If only they just turned the camera away from Reynolds and Bateman for maybe five minutes and filmed Arkin ramble for a while. (Perhaps they could even get Paul Dano to sit in the corner and listen) It'd be spontaneous. It'd be alive. It'd actually make the movie funny.

I hate to ruin the ending, but we all know how it ends: everything works out. Is there anything else that needs to be said? Oh, Olivia Wilde is also in this film. I still am not sure what she did for the plot other than looked good. My final thoughts on this fine piece of film-Americana is: well at least there won't be a sequel.

On a more personal note: readers, I would like to apologize. I feel like we got off on the wrong foot last post. I mentioned something about how you didn't have any lives because you found my blog. I was wrong. I'm sure you all do have lives. I cannot speak to how fulfilling those lives are, but I can guess. I mean you are reading this blog aren't you? That, in and of itself, is a rather telling sign. But anyway, I hope we can patch things up and keep on keeping on as the saying goes. You do have lives and probably almost important ones at that. Yay you.

Keep Up the Good Work,

DG