Go check out “Paul.” A self-proclaimed love letter to Spielberg (who even has a cameo), it chronicles the adventures of two nerds played by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, doing for alien encounter films what they’ve done for zombie flicks and cop movies. On a road trip following the San Diego Comic Con, they wind up unwillingly giving a lift to a convivial alien (voiced by Seth Rogen) who is on the run from an MIB-like agency that wants to pick his brain…literally. Filled with countless in-jokes and inspired meta casting (who runs the agency that’s out to get the alien? Sigourney Weaver, of course), “Paul” will enable you to discern the kindred spirits in the theater by who laughs at certain lines (ex: dialogue from “Star Wars,” “Aliens,” and other classics show up at unexpected and yet wholly appropriate moments.) Along for the ride is SNL’s Kristen Wiig as an die-hard bible thumper who unexpectedly has her world widened and winds up reveling in using profanity (badly) and exploring physical pleasure (awkwardly).
Naturally this is the kind of film that Oscar will never have any truck with, but if it’s not up for a Hugo next year, there’s no justice.
PAD
• 
I loved it!
I saw it last weekend and loved it, may see it again.
Just one thing — if you have young kids, LEAVE THEM AT HOME! The R-rating for “Paul” is 99.9% due to language.
I saw it last weekend. While I enjoyed it, it just felt like it was missing *something*, and that it could have been an even better movie.
It’s gonna be on the Netflix queue as soon as it’s available.
Y’know, its box office performance has been sluggish, and I wonder if that’s part of the reason: It doesn’t have the sort of spectacle that requires seeing it in theaters, and its target audience is the most likely to be wired into alternate means of viewing films such as Netflix (not to mention the illegal venues.)
.
PAD
The laughing at bits of dialog (or music) that they recognise… To me, that’s the main problem with the movie.
.
Cultural references aren’t jokes.
.
The mistaken belief that they are, has led to a ton of spoof movies which aren’t spoofs. They are simply filled with cultural references. And audiences are expected to laugh and say “Hah! I recognise that from somewhere else! It’s something I recognise! Hah!”
.
It’s not a joke. It’s not funny. And I don’t rightly understand the sort of mental process that finds familiarity funny.
.
Personally, I thought the funniest line was the one about Dylan. “Isn’t he?” And that was funny because it was true.
I don’t disagree with you that cultural references aren’t jokes. But if they are used in the proper context, they are funny. Not everything that’s funny is a joke. In fact, most things that are funny aren’t jokes.
.
I feel that “Paul’s” use of iconic lines was both funny and well-timed. They always advanced the story or characterization and they were funny in their own context in the film. It wasn’t some scattershot tossing out of endless references such as one sees in the spoof films you rightly dislike.
.
The problem is that creators are always going to look at what works in one situation and completely misuse and abuse it in their own endeavors. It’s not dissimilar from the “grim and gritty” phase that descended on comics. Comics like “Watchmen” and “Dark Knight” were hugely successful and people attributed it to a dark, serious tone. So they tried to emulate it. What they didn’t bother to notice was that both those works had many genuinely funny moments that helped to balance the darkness. Instead they just turned out material that was relentlessly depressing without the contrast that made the previous endeavors work so well.
.
Same thing here except with humor instead of grim and gritty.
.
PAD
It’s not a joke. It’s not funny.
.
It’s not a joke, but I found some of them to be hilarious.
.
My wife LOVES the references to “Firefly” that are in episodes of “Castle”. It makes the show MORE enjoyable when done properly and done well.
.
And they are in “Castle”, just as they are in Paul.
.
To each their own.
John: You’re wrong. Peter’s right – things that are funny aren’t necessarily jokes.
.
This is similar to the USAian perception that animated films are automatically for kids.
.
Or that comics are for kids.
.
Yes, there are films that are almost
.
entirely cultural references, which i don’t think will wear well – Shrek, for instance.
.
Craig’s reference to Castle and its Firefly references, is spot-on. The thing to recognise is that those references, while amusing (“First, there are no space cowboys. Second, didn’t you do that costume like, five years ago?”), are generally such that people who Don’t Get It won’t even notice it.
.
(There are rather more references than just the Firefly ones in Castle, for that matter; often to other films or teevee shows actors in that episode have been in, as when Castle remarks he’s thinking of putting in a panic room.)
Mike, thanks for agreeing with me. As for “Shrek,” from what I remember, most of the in-joke references were to nursery rhymes and other fairy tales (ex: the Gingerbread Man’s being pumped for info turns into a recitation of “The Muffin Man.”) Since “Shrek” was an inversion of fairy tales, that seemed justifiable to me. The only contemporary aspects I remember was that, when the mirror showed the prospective princesses, the sequence was modeled on “The Dating Game,” and Dulac was basically modeled on Disneyland. But the former was pretty funny and the latter was subtle, so they didn’t bother me.
.
Now “Shrek II,” on the other hand, was practically wall-to-wall send-ups of contemporary references, particularly movies. That became incredibly annoying very, very quickly, and displayed the sort of lack of imagination you’re talking about.
.
PAD
I think some of the sluggish response has been due to the pretty sub-par marketing; none of the ads made me want to go see it.
.
And while I’m not on the Seth Rogen Hatewagon, the voicewrok doesn’t thrill me (again, just from the ads). I’d like to have seen what a Billy West would do. Hëll, let Seth MacFarlane do his Paul Lynde impression, I’d be so there (and the title would be funnier. As is, “Paul” is kind of a meh title, though you can still do ok with a pretty bad title, Romancing the Stone and Quantum of Solace I’m looking at YOU.)
From my perspective, “Paul” *looks* entertaining, but I’m so turned off by the ubiquitous smarm brow / ‘tude look on CGI movie posters these days that I have no urge to see it. Same reason I don’t particularly care if I see Tangled (two ‘tudes) or Megamind (four ‘tudes — FIVE if you include the aquatic dude with no eyebrows).
.
Yeah, it’s a weird reason not to see movies. But Smarm Brow drives me NUTS.
Can’t argue with that. It was so badly marketed that the ONLY reason I saw it was positive word of mouth. And I’m the target audience. If the ads turned me off from wanting to see it, you know they really dropped the ball.
.
PAD
I’ve never even seen any ads for it, so I’d say that’s pretty bad marketing. But having just now watched the trailer online, I have to wonder if no marketing might have been better. The trailer is aggressively unfunny. And the target audience is unclear. And it inexplicably uses a song from Xanadu.
.
The movie looks like something I might have wanted to see in 1996, when I actually did take a UFO tour of the Southwest, and when the CGI character would have looked amazing, and when pop culture references in movies weren’t so ubiquitous. Now, not so much.
And I’m the target audience.
.
So am I, and I was looking forward to seeing this film since the first trailer was released. So, I’m not sure how this could have necessarily been marketed better.
.
If anything, one could argue that the market of this film is too focused on the hardcore geeks and nerds, of which there are still limited numbers.
.
I mean, compare it to the Star Trek reboot. That was a movie that was made for all audiences, and it succeeded because of that. But I don’t really think it’s a Star Trek film (and I say this based on what I’ve seen/heard; I have not seen the film, and never intend to), and if it was a Star Trek film through and through, it probably wouldn’t have done nearly as well.
I’m the target audience, but I’m seeing it. Why? Two words: Pegg and Frost.
.
The downside of it to me is that Seth Rogen is in it.
.
And by the way, Craig, give the Star Trek reboot a chance. It is a good movie and enjoyable.
.
Plus, you get to see Spock one more time.
.
TAC
The TV ads didn’t impress me. What made me decide I might want to see this was a bit from a radio ad, of all things. The two main characters have just introduced themselves, and the alien replies, “I’m Paul.”
.
“Paul??”
.
“Yeah. It’s a nickname, it kind of stuck, we crashed once on this– look, it’s not important, I need to get to my ship, okay??”
.
The ads have been horrible and they haven’t done anything to make it look like an event movie, but it’s Nick Frost and Simon Pegg writing and starring in it. I wish Wright had been onboard to make it the grand slam of guarantees, but two out of three of them is enough for me based on their track records.
Keep in mind that the film’s budget was only $40 million. (I know, if I had $40 million right now, I’d be set for the rest of my life.) In it’s first week, “Paul” made nearly half of that back.
Actually, counting worldwide, it’s made $45 million. Since the general rule of thumb, when factoring in prints and promotion, is that it has to make back one and a half times its budget, it’s well on its way. I’d just like to see it doing better.
.
PAD
Can anyone explain that rule of thumb? Why should prints and ads for a 100 million dollar movie cost more than a 20 million dollar movie?
The complexities of Hollywood economics are understandable only to studio moguls (and maybe not even them). It gets even more complicated when you factor in overseas sales. I’ve actually heard a movie has to double its budget in order to make a profit. So how studios are making any money is one of those mysteries we’re not meant to comprehend.
“Why should prints and ads for a 100 million dollar movie cost more than a 20 million dollar movie?”
.
With the understanding that most of Hollywood accounting is complete and utter B.S., designed to make sure that people with deals that give them a percentage of net will never make any money…
.
Because a $100 million movie is going to receive more advertising and wider distribution since it cost more to make. The more money they invest in a film, the more they’re going to push it.
.
PAD
Makes sense, though at a certain point it fails–an 80 million dollar movies and a 90 million dollar movie will possibly get the exact same push and there are only so many venues–once you have the film in every multiplex you have no reason to make more prints.
.
If digital projection takes over I would think that the cost of films should go down considerably.
Yeah, you’d think so, wouldn’t you? I’m sure Hollywood accountants are more than equal to the challenge, though…
“Can anyone explain that rule of thumb? Why should prints and ads for a 100 million dollar movie cost more than a 20 million dollar movie?”
It’s prints and ads – film prints becoming less common these days of course, but still necessary. And ads are expensive. An average marketing budget for a hoped-for blockbuster is in the $40 million range.
Also keep in mind that5 theatre take a cut of the box-office. How much varies, but not all of the money goes to the studio.
And really, from what I know, the rule of thumb is more like 2x production budget to get into the black. 1.5 was a while ago.
I saw PAUL this weekend (shameless plug: my review is at http://thearmchaircritic.blogspot.com/2011/03/paul.html ) and I found it more cute than hysterical. Still, if there’s anyone who should hate aliens, it’s Sigourney Weaver…
As for the “cultural references aren’t jokes” discussion, above, it depends on how they’re used. On the one hand, there are the broad parody movies (DISASTER MOVIE, DATE MOVIE, SCARY MOVIE (though I did like the 3rd), VAMPIRES SUCK) that take a “we saw the trailer, now let’s joke about it!” approach: superficial, juvenile, and usually pretty bad. Pegg and Frost, by contrast, always give the feel that they know the culture, and they enjoy it as much as they’re laughing at it. They know the audience will get the quotes/situations, but they are put in organically rather than shoehorned in.
In fact, that’s part of my problem with PAUL. Pegg and Frost’s two prior films — SHAUN OF THE DEAD and HOT FUZZ — were excellent, because they spent a lot of time acknowledging, skewering, and reveling in the excesses of zombie movies and action movies, respectively. PAUL felt like it spent more time as a chase movie (they’re pursued by four different groups!) than having fun with the UFO and comic book culture.
BTW, was anyone else surprised that there was the running joke about the artist’s cover alien with three ti– breasts, but no one ever mentioned TOTAL RECALL?
“BTW, was anyone else surprised that there was the running joke about the artist’s cover alien with three ti– breasts, but no one ever mentioned TOTAL RECALL.”
.
See, whereas I was thinking about Eccentrica Galumbits, the triple-breasted whørë of Eroticon VI from “Hitchhiker.”
.
PAD
Hopefully going to see it tonight. As far as I’m concerned, Pegg & Frost together is pure gold. Hot Fuzz and Shaun Of The Dead were just outstanding. And SPACED is still one of the best and funniest Britcoms I’ve ever seen (any SciFi, comic book, and pop culture geek would love it, IMO).
Just got back a little while ago from seeing, based on your recommendation, Peter. It was good. Thanks.
The question I have is this: would “Paul” have been better if the trifecta was complete and Edgar Wright was directing? My first inclination is “yes”. The pacing would have been tighter and there would have been many more cutaways explaining what happened to the title character during his 60+ year incarceration.
(I saw “Paul” opening weekend and found it somewhat dull due to pacing).
Judging by Superbad and Adventureland, I can’t say Greg Mottola has the talent of Edgar Wright, so yes, probably (another reason I don’t think I would like this movie).
Regarding advertising for Paul, I can’t say I saw a lot on TV but I did see a lot of promos for it on line, where it has been discussed for months. The red band trailer for Paul is hilarious and made me want to see it immediately because it accurately represented what the film was like. But I don’t recall ever seeing any red band trailer in a theater, even with an R rated film, so they seem to be made to be seen on line. Another example is the current red band trailer for Your Highness which is much funnier than the toned down promos I’ve seen on TV.
What I like about “Castle” is that the actors playing the supporting police detectives resemble Craig Charles and Christopher Barrie, none other than Lister and Rimmer from Red Dwarf. 🙂
Went to see it yesterday and loved it. Every SF fan will probably find something to like, but as noted above be aware of the prolific (but totally hysterical) swearing. There were so many in jokes and Easter eggs to find. For example, there is a Gertie’s Diner (Drew Barrymore’s character in ET was named Gertie) and also a bar named Roy’s (Roy Neary from CE3K perhaps?). There is one that I wasn’t sure of however. A young boy is named Keith Nash, and it seems like the characters go out of their way to repeat his name several times, making me think it was another pop culture reference, but I can’t make the connection. The closest I could find was wrestler Kevin Nash. Any ideas?
Can’t find any SF or fantasy reference. The only Keith Nash I was able to find of any prominence was a musician who has a number of tunes I’ve never heard of available for purchase through Amazon. That, and “Keith Nash” is a character on a football (what we would call soccer) team in a series of British young adult athletic novels.
.
PAD
Here’s my problem with it, just from the ads is that I cannot buy into Paul as all because it just Seth Rogan. I watch commercials and I don’t see Paul I see Seth Rogan. His voice doesn’t really match the character to me, plus it feels like Seth is playing himself, so I lose all suspension of disbelief.
I thought that would be annoying, too, but I caught the movie last night and Rogan’s voice actually works for the character. It’s not as over-the-top as Grasshopper or when he’s rolling an Apatow film. The casting was just fine.
.
Check the movie out. It’s actually really entertaining.
.
AD
I caught the movie yesterday at a friend’s recommendation, and I’m glad I did. Very funny and entertaining – plus I now know that there’s a country version of the cantina theme.
Anyone catch the “Hot Fuzz” inside joke? It didn’t hit me until this morning!
Didn’t spot it. Hit me.
.
PAD
It’s when they run into the Nevada State Trooper in the convenience store – he asks them if the police in England carry guns, and they say no. The trooper then makes a remark about how the British can’t shoot criminals and they were wusses, or something like that.