Review: Heckler

***** Originally posted on Epinions.com, slightly edited to make it seem a little less crap *****

 

Given its hot potato nature, this 2007 Michael Addis documentary co-produced and starring actor/comedian Jamie Kennedy, seems to have inspired two styles of film review; 1) The angry, juvenile, smart-alecky rebuttal that is pretty much playing into the filmmakers’ hands as an example of the very thing the film is arguing against, or 2) The measured, polite, straight-forward analytical review from a bunch of wuss-bag critics scared of being lumped into the first category. I’m a wuss-bag, but not today. Oh, no. Today I’m angry, and I’m gonna play right out of the playbook of the first style of review. There’s one difference, though. Unlike the nerdy, smart-alecky cream-puffs Kennedy childishly berates in the film, who fail to intelligently stick up for themselves, I’m pretty decent at mixing my juvenile and unashamedly derisive side with genuine, articulated reasoning (Humility is admittedly a bit lacking. I’m a work in progress, OK?).

 

Jamie, if you disagree with my review and think you can match wits with me, please feel free to email me (I can’t imagine you forking out the money for a plane ticket to Australia so you can pay me one of your patented ‘visits’, you’re more than welcome!) and I’ll gladly hand you your arse with a verbal tirade so unbelievably smart-arsey yet entirely considered and articulate that it will make you cry for your mama, like the big girly man you clearly are (And if any of my fellow online critics wanna take on pugilistic director Uwe Boll while I take on Jamie, it would be much appreciated!). However, I am aware that despite what you show in the film, you’re not an avid reader of online film reviews, and given this film was released in 2007, I doubt very much if you have any interest in reading this anyway. Just in case, I’m going to go ahead anyway. But before we get to that, let me just start off by saying, Mr. Kennedy (not to be confused with the wrestler of said moniker. There you go, Jamie, point one to you. I’m a wrestling nerd!) that until this film I had absolutely nothing against you. You played my favourite character in the “Scream” series, for instance. And although I have not seen “Son of the Mask”, I think if you’re looking for a C-grade Jim Carrey to star in a C-grade sequel to “The Mask”, you and fellow “Scream” alum Matthew Lillard are the only two respectable substitutes I can currently think of.

 

I even liked great chunks of the first part of this documentary, which whilst directed by Mr. Addis, is clearly a Jamie Kennedy Project (or should that be Xperiment?). The first part of this doco explores the unfortunate phenomenon every stand-up comedian seems to have endured at some point in their careers: the audience heckler. Addis gives us several comedians’ takes on the phenomenon, with the infamous Michael Richards meltdown incident also being mentioned (He won’t be gettin’ no Christmas Card from Arsenio, that’s for sure!), and Bill Hicks’ notoriously profane and aggressive retort to a heckler (an incredible moment). Then we move on to Jamie Kennedy himself. And Jamie, I’m sorry, but you don’t come off well even in the early stages of this film. Inviting a heckler backstage to whine and complain and ask why he’s so mean and why he doesn’t love you anymore, wah wah wah etc., is insufferable, irritating, and just plain sad. It must be hard for a comedian to concentrate on their act when some (usually drunk) moron is yelling at you semi-coherently, but you’re a comedian, Jamie, and you just have to deal with it. Quit your whining, you big girly man! (Point two to Mr. Kennedy. Name calling is infantile. My bad). And I know that you are aware of all this, which is why I find this film occasionally interesting, but totally disingenuous. Jamie’s just kidding around at the end of the day, he and Addis are just making a silly little movie that probably wasn’t meant to be taken too seriously...but in the process they royally pissed this online critic right off anyway. As whiny as Kennedy gets in the early section, things aren’t too bad, as I said, some of it is pretty interesting and fun. Even when he’s whining, there’s humour to be had. I can’t defend his (point to Jamie, I’m switching between formal writing and personal. Damn, this is hard!) whiny tirade against a heckler backstage after a gig, but his conversation with a reassuring, but clearly drunk Deep Roy (the little actor favoured by Tim Burton) in a Jacuzzi, is both surreal (are they even friends?) and pretty damn funny. I’ve probably conceded another point here considering laughing at little people isn’t funny, but I’ll wear that one. Funny is funny.

 

But then Misters Kennedy and Addis, you go right off the rails and reveal the real point of your thesis. Like I said, I doubt you’re truly as angry as you appear to be in this film, Mr. Kennedy, but you do present yourself that way, and you appear to have an axe to grind with film critics. This is especially the case with the critics who so callously dismissed your work in “Son of the Mask”. Jamie wants to know why people are so mean, and why they make it so personal in their attacks. He feels as if critics are holding him solely responsible for the ineptitude of a film. Like I said, I haven’t seen “Son of the Mask” and I won’t personally dismiss it, except to say Jamie, that it’s pretty darn unpopular with critics and it didn’t set the world on fire at the box-office, either. So...maybe there’s a reason for its lack of popularity? But Jamie doesn’t want to see reason, though I must confess Jon Lovitz, used here to defend Jamie, does indeed come up with some interesting points in trying to justify one of his own so-called stinkers, “The Benchwarmers”. He basically argues that it’s a silly comedy for kids and shouldn’t be seen as high art. I actually didn’t hate the film (mostly due to Lovitz himself, he’s always funny, often because he’s not all that talented and funnier for it!), though I found it lazy, and boasting the critics’ triple threat of Schneider, Spade and Lovitz. But the man has a point, sometimes critics bash a film without really thinking about what it’s trying to achieve and who it is aimed at. Still, “The Benchwarmers” was ultimately a failure at what it was trying to achieve, even if it wasn’t bottom-of-the-barrel. Less helpful are interviews with Carrie Fisher (who offers the same anecdotes she’s been using for decades), George Lucas (Gee, I wonder what he has to say about critics? Pretty lazy to go to Mr. Lucas, if you ask me), and a strangely ripped Carrot Top (Is he here to be sympathetic to Kennedy or just because he’s even less popular and makes him look good by comparison?). As alluded to above, we also encounter uber-crap director Uwe Boll (director of “House of the Dead”, “BloodRayne”, and several other poorly received films with alarmingly big-name casts, based on computer games), who so offended by critics’ dismissals of his work, actually challenges them to step into the boxing ring with him, and routinely beats the crap out of them. We see this, I am not making this up. And it’s awesome, really amusing stuff, and hopefully a bit tongue-in-cheek. I have no problems with Boll at all, because a) He looks like he could make short work of me, and b) “BloodRayne” is slightly underrated.

 

Anyway, back to Jamie. Jamie’s not content to just interview a bunch of movie people who have had their arses handed to them by critics, no our Jamie takes things a teeny bit further by actually confronting a couple of his critics. Well, first he bitches and moans and cries about their reviews, but then he goes and visits them. But just as the film gets some pretty obvious people on the anti-critic side, the choice of people on the critics’ side is equally problematic. The only truly notable people interviewed are likeable, talented and respected (but ‘safe’) Leonard Maltin, and Richard Roeper (AKA the guy who isn’t Siskel, and certainly ain’t Ebert). Neither offers up anything terribly interesting, nor is the film interested in them anyway. No, the bulk of this section of the film is devoted to online critics (a brotherhood I myself am a part of, naturally), whom Kennedy clearly finds to be the scum of the Earth and not fit to call themselves writers or critics. And true enough, the few chosen (important words there) representatives for this segment of the film reviewing community are pretty much your standard snarky, nerdy fan geek bloggers. Kennedy basically tells them as much, ridiculing them and insultingly assuming they have no sex lives. Ha ha, Jamie’s simulating oral sex and poking fun at the nerdy guys, oh that’s so funny and so insightful! Not to mention the fact that he’s a professional comedian and actor pretty much ambushing a couple of guys who may not be as confident speakers as Kennedy, in order to give thoughtful and articulate responses to Kennedy’s shameful and shameless antics. These antics also include deriding an online critic for daring to make himself different to the countless other online reviewers and bloggers by implementing a ‘waffle’ scoring system as opposed to stars. Well excuse him for trying to be creative, Jamie! Is this really the best you could do? ‘Coz that pretty much just shows how lacking in talent and creativity you actually are. You’re clearly not interested in having an honest, open, and well-considered debate on the issue of criticism, not when you can take the easy way out by featuring wussy online critics and softball film critics like Maltin and Roeper.

 

And then Jamie and the director do the unthinkable and illogical. They actually try to tie the concept of the audience heckler with the role of the film critic! Are you serious? You are genuinely trying to equate someone who rudely and often inarticulately interrupts a comedian’s performance mid-act, with a film critic whose job (after the film has been completed!) is to critique and analyse the merit of a film, based on their personal opinion and set of criteria. Is this what you’re really trying to do? I doubt it, I think you’re just making a whole lot of noise, but because you are presenting your argument as such, I have every right to say this is complete bullshit. I am not stupid, nor am I ignorant of the varying quality of film criticism online. Some reviewers are just downright terrible, and even several higher-profile ones are sycophantic fan boys at times. But to put forth the idea that online criticism is the lowest form of writing (which this film does strongly suggest) is entirely ignorant, and in my non-professional and entirely biased opinion, insulting and inflammatory. As someone who has been reading and writing reviews online for several websites since (at the very least) 2003, I have seen plenty of genuinely good film critics out there, who are articulate, reasonable, and even a few who can refrain from getting snarky and personal. One need only look to James Berardinelli for an example of this, let alone many of my colleagues at ‘The Horror Asylum’. Hell, throw me in there too. Modesty be damned, I know my stuff and I’ve been known to write a coherent review or two, if perhaps sometimes lacking in brevity (Shut up, I can write a concise review if the film calls for it). And you know what? I’m gonna stick up for the ones who make personal attacks too, at least those who, like me, can mix the personal stuff with genuinely articulate, critical thought. In my view, some reviews need to be written in a snarky, hyperbolically negative manner because (and this is important Jamie, when we critics deride your work at such an intense level of hatred and scorn) it is for a genuine reason. Like everyone, we critics like to see good movies, so we get genuinely offended and disappointed when you present us with crap smeared on celluloid. It is offensive. As writers, our best response and reaction to such an offense is to put our thoughts in the form of a review. A good or great film will be showered with praise- I bet you don’t mind when people make positive personal remarks about you Jamie!- and a bad film will receive an opened can of critical whupass that will send you crying to your momma. It’s called written expression. And even when the attacks are personal, they actually aren’t really meant to be personal (at least most aren’t. I try to draw the line at making comments about a person’s real-life personal tragedies. That’s pretty foul, though I’ve probably slipped up a time or two). We hate the film, maybe even hate your performance, but the only reason why it seems personal, is because the actor or director is the easiest and most prominent person in the equation to blame. And, sometimes- and I’m sorry if this hurts you Jamie- it really is the actors or director or screenwriter who really offends us with their work. Sometimes it’s just one aspect of a film that is so noticeably bad that we notice it and have to comment on it. And that’s too bad if you’re a triple threat, writer-director-star!

 

In summary, I know this film was made several years ago and you and Mr. Addis probably don’t care about my opinion any more now than you would’ve back in 2007, but as a member of the online film criticism community, I felt it my duty to review this film, and highlight the great mistakes you and Mr. Addis have made in your narrow-minded, if not outright dishonest thesis. Let me repeat, I have nothing personal against either of you, as I do not personally know you. But please do not equate me with an inconsiderate loudmouth, do not tell me that I am the lowest on the film reviewing totem pole, and most certainly do not tell me that I cannot unleash a hyperbolic, smart-alecky written tirade on a film that I personally find to be offensively poorly made. It is my right, as it is your right not to read anything that I write. In return I promise that when I see one of your films that I really like, I’ll duly praise it, and I will try my best not to over-indulge in personal attacks unless entirely necessary, or self-indulgence gets the better of me.

 

Rating: C