A Million Ways to Die in the West

Dustin: 1 of 5 stars Nick: 2.5 of 5 stars Average: 1.75 of 5 stars (Canary on life support)

Dustin: A Million Ways to Die in the West is a long, tiresome *ahem* comedy in which Seth MacFarlane deconstructs the Western genre with subversive, ironic humor (ha!).

MacFarlane (Family Guy) is Albert Stark, a sheep herder hurting after a breakup with his girlfriend, Louise (yawn). Louise is now involved with the owner of a mustache-grooming shop, Foy (Neil Patrick Harris, Starship Troopers). However, Albert soon finds a more compatible partner in Anna (Charlize Theron). Only problem is her husband, Clinch Leatherwood (Liam Neeson, Schindler's List), is a big-time baddie who is riding into town for some reason the movie didn’t care enough to explain.

Nick, what did you think of A Million Ways to Not Give a Flying F***?

Nick: Is there anything worth applauding about this movie? No! Though I found myself laughing more than in the somewhat respectable Neighbors. Once again the most important thing about a comedy is that it makes you laugh, whether or not the film is absolutely dreadful.

Dustin: There were some one-liners that made me laugh, and a few jokes out of left-field I found funny (the best of which were already in the trailer), but for every laugh (none of which were huge), there were two or three jokes that fell flat. And given the movie was almost two hours with a throwaway plot, I found myself getting increasingly bored as this movie dragged on.

Nick: I recall Roger Ebert stating a comedy is better when the jokes exist within its constructed universe. My biggest problem with A Million Ways to Die in the West is that our main character seemed to be the only one who did not exist within the film’s universe. MacFarlane constantly makes jokes that could not have existed during that time, and all the other characters react as if he is nuts. This happens throughout the film and only Anna seems to get his jokes.

Dustin: A lot of jokes in this movie were based on “breaking the fourth wall,” much like Mel Brooks does in his films. The reason this movie fails is because even with all its raunchy humor, it never feels subversive, as Blazing Saddles did in the 1970s. This movie is just obnoxious. The jokes that don’t involve breaking the fourth wall are usually someone farting. The rest are about poop or pee.

A movie can be funny with a character existing outside the “constructed universe” if the humor is wry or detached. Think of Bill Murray in Groundhog Day or Lost In Translation.

Nick: In Blazing Saddles everyone character is in on the premise that these jokes were anachronistic. In A Million Ways to Die in the West, only MacFarlane seems to understand himself.

Dustin: Maybe MacFarlane should have played a time traveler stuck in the Wild West. This would have at least given his jokes a reason to exist. His character is detached from the setting, but the humor goes for gross-outs rather than irony. This is really a lowest-common-denominator comedy in the same vein as MacFarlane’s animated shows.

Nick: While there is no arguing for Family Guy, American Dad! (after first season) has become a pretty phenomenal cartoon. Just check out the episode “Toy Whorey” (season eight, episode 18) to see what I mean. Anywho, with all of MacFarlane’s background in musical theater, I’m shocked he doesn’t make a musical. He has a solid voice and his songwriting is good as well. I’d enjoy a comedy musical.

Dustin: MacFarlane does have a certain charm with his voice and clean-cut looks. I might enjoy a musical comedy if he did one, but given he pretty much has carte blanche on his projects, I don’t see him putting in that kind of effort (musicals and comedies are the two most difficult genres to write).

Nick: MacFarlane should either act in movies written by other people or direct and write movies where he leaves the acting to another (Ted). This movie fails in that he is the writer, director and star. When MacFarlane goes on his rants in the movie (it happens a lot) it’s obvious he wrote those words and is delivering them as if he is having a drunken conversation in a bar in 2014, but talking about the Old West. They also call the West, “THE WEST,” quite too often. For all the talking about THE WEST its shocking THE EAST never comes into play. Maybe Neil Patrick Harrison’s character could have recently arrived from THE EAST to where people living in the shitty West (including MacFarlane) would fawn over him while he betrays the town with plans to knock it all down in some devious money-making scheme. As is all the plots from Westerns.

Dustin: This movie avoided some of the cliches of the Western genre in that it didn’t have some greedy baron forcing people of their land like Shane or Once Upon a Time in the West. That probably would have made the movie better, though. He could have parodied the cliches of the genre. Instead, we have some story about a guy dumped by his girlfriend and falling for another girl while trying to make his ex jealous. It isn’t even a plot, really.

Nick: The film never focuses on that plot either. Though I found that kind of realistic. Real life doesn’t have plots, things just happen. So while the film had motivation, it never really had a plot.  Since the film isn’t a character study (film with no plot) nor a drama, the film needed a plot in order for the film to move forward in a somewhat organized manner. Though organization is not MacFarlane’s strong suit.

Dustin: I think all films need a plot, even if they are character studies. Why would I pay good money to watch real life when I can see real life through my window? If I wanted to watch real life on film, I would see The Real Cancun.

Nick: Not all films are plot-driven, instead they are driven by motivation. Martin Scorsese's films are known to be more motivated by characters than plot based until The Departed. Most indie films are more driven by characters than plot.

Dustin: I find it funny we’ve gone off topic and started talking about good movies. I think further highlighting how crappy this movie was is that it was filmed in Monument Valley, where John Ford filmed a lot of his Westerns. Just looking at the stone formations, you think of The Searchers, which reminds you of what an actual movie should be.

Was there anything you liked about this film?

Nick: Harris played his character spectacularly, and Theron proves that even in a bad film she tries her hardest to make it that much better. The Old Prospector was good too.

Dustin: I’d recommend this film to anyone who likes to sit in a theater with a bunch of morons forcing themselves to laugh at every joke, saying, “That’s so wrong!”

The Lego Movie

Dustin: 4.5 of 5 stars Nick: 3.5 of 5 stars Average: 4 of 5 stars (Live canary)

Dustin: The Lego Movie is a 100-minute Lego commercial starring Chris Pratt, Will Ferrell, Morgan Freeman, Elizabeth Banks, Will Arnett and Liam Neeson. It’s set in a George Orwellian dystopia where everything is “awesome” and everyone follows the “instructions,” blissfully unaware that the evil President Business (Ferrell) plans to super glue them permanently in their perfect state.

Dustin: What’s your take on The Lego Movie, Nick? 

Nick: Since the film is made of Legos it allows itself a unique world where characters from Michelangelo (the artist) to Michelangelo (the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle) try and help a nobody defeat the ruler, also a non-famous Lego. The idea feels like Shrek mixed with Phil Lord’s and Christopher Miller’s eccentric animated piece Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs. While the jokes are fast and witty, it gets a little tiring until the plot starts to progress in the last third. 

Dustin: I loved almost everything about this movie. Readers of Joseph Campbell will immediately recognize Emmett (Pratt) as the “Hero with a Thousand Faces.” The story follows Campbell’s outline of the Hero’s Journey so perfectly it can’t be a coincidence. You have the archetypical everyman (Emmett), the call to adventure (finding the Piece of Resistance), the denial to the call (doubting he is the Special prophecy foretold), the literal crossing of the threshold, assembling the team, the vortex into the center of the universe, a (figurative) into the belly of the whale sequence, death and rebirth, an ogre father who needs to be reconciled with. This was literally an epic adventure. 

Nick: Something I loved, but was also the reason for my annoyance, was how all these things that you mentioned are mocked by the characters in the film. This continually happens until the last third. It’s hard to take something and enjoy it when it is constantly mocked. 

Dustin: I appreciated the humor in the movie. I think by the end my face was hurting from me smiling throughout. I don’t mind that the whole Hero’s Journey unfolded somewhat sarcastically. In fact, I think that’s what made me like it even more. They were fully aware of what they were doing and had fun with it. 

Nick: Agreed, it just did too much with being fully aware and not much outside of it. The film is cast expertly with some of the most lively character voicing ever. Morgan Freeman as Vitruvius (Oracle) is tongue-in-cheek itself, but Unikitty, voiced by Allison Brie, was a personal favorite for me. 

Dustin: Morgan Freeman was perfectly cast as the Oracle, another Campbell-esque mentor figure, satirizing the roles he’s played in other movies, such as the Dark Knight series.

So why didn’t the movie work for you until the final act? 

Nick: In the final act the movie starts to push away from it being fully self-aware and starts to at least try and garner some heart. I don’t really want to speak of the surprise, but the idea behind the father and son bonding moment was done well. Though it did end with an unrealistic turn around by the father and an out-of-place notion (Legos aren’t for adults, but for kids). 

Dustin: There are two types of Lego consumers, which this movie is fully aware of: the adult hobbyists who typically follow the instructions and sometimes glue the pieces together and the kids who have more freeform play. The movie nods at both, but seems to be advocating for the latter, which I also found a bit out-of-place. Why would Legos include instructions if they didn’t intend for them to be followed? 

Nick: I actually think adult enthusiasts are the more freeform and kids follow the instructions. As a kid I know I always did and had a damn fun time doing it as well, but now you have competitions where adults try and build the most amazing thing out of Legos where they have no instructions. Though I can believe there are adults who still buy Legos and glue all the pieces together, I’m just happy to say none are my friends! 

Dustin: I enjoyed the whole film. But, like you, I thought the final act is what elevated it above what came before. If the final act had been like the previous two, I would have walked away satisfied, but probably would have forgotten it in a week or two. But the final act, which all I’ll say about it that it’s live-action, is part of what made this film great. I actually enjoyed the father’s character arc and didn’t think it was unrealistic, knowing how even an uptight hobbyist who's OCD about his Legos would enjoy playing with his child more than spending all his time on an introverted hobby. 

Nick: When I say unrealistic I’m going for how the father and son have probably had this exact same conversation before and how the father does a pretty quick turn around within probably 30 minutes, though he’s been telling his preadolescent son all these years to not touch his stuff. While I can let it go and enjoy the film I was just pointing out the unlikeliness of the action. 

Dustin: The Lego Movie is, in my opinion, the best animated family film since Toy Story (is it a coincidence these movies are both about toys?). If I had to fault the movie with anything, it’s that the animation is sometimes too busy. I had trouble following the action at times because there was so much going on at once and too fast to keep up.

Children will enjoy the bright colors and adventure, but there are plenty of in-jokes and themes for parents to enjoy as well. I recommend this to all audiences.