The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected)

New York is famously home to some wacky characters and cinema has often sought to capture that 'New York spirit' in the stories it tells. Film makers build personalities around the New York ethos - the stories of the quirky, rushed, community driven but isolated individuals that inhabit the famous city.

Noah Baumbach's Meyerowitz Stories is one such story.  It's the tale of a family headed by semi-successful sculptor Harold Meyerowitz (Dustin Hoffman) that comes together and falls apart on repeat for its near two-hour runtime. After a medical incident, Harold's two sons, Danny (Adam Sandler) and Matthew (Ben Stiller), and daughter Jean (Elizabeth Marvel), rally together to support each other and their father despite their estrangement from one another. But honouring your father isn't always as easy as it appears to be, especially when they're as neurotic as Harold. 

The Meyerowitz Stories is a fascinating exploration into the minds of the all the major players in a dysfunctional family jammed with exceptional performances. The film is broken into sections - handily titled or surmised with a title plaque like those you may see in a gallery - to give us greater insight into one character or situation at a time. We start with recently separated Danny as he desperately tries to park his car in busy Manhattan with his daughter Eliza (Grace Van Patten) in a comical sequence where the viewer is rammed into the car with the pair, the camera squeezed in between them, not just seeing their relationship but feeling it. Later we join Matthew, Harold's favourite son, who has escaped to LA and returned for lunch with his father, but no restaurant lives up to Harold's standards. We then have several shorter episodes, a group episode, a short Jean episode, and so on. 

Around the place, the film is being heralded as an Adam Sandler film, and whilst this is his best performance in years, this is not strictly true. This is a true ensemble piece and each performer brings something powerful and meaningful to the story. Dustin Hoffman's Harold is a genius creation; a grumpy, mumbling, artist who never quite peaked in his career and is almost allergic to other's success, at one point physically running from a former contemporary's show. He is the glue that holds the narrative together by pushing the family apart but there's something oddly endearing about him. Sandler and Stiller, alongside each other for the first time since Happy Gilmore, are brilliant as the half-brothers Danny and Matthew respectively. Their drastically different relationships with their father bringing much of the film's entertainment and conflict and their on-screen chemistry amplifying and exaggerating the comedy in their pain. Emma Thompson is also present as Maureen, an alcoholic Professor Trelawney type and Harold's fourth wife (who lovingly refers to him as The Dad).

The genius of Mereyowitz is in its weighty screenplay. This is a puff pastry of a family narrative - it's layered. The dialogue flows but no one is listening to one another. It's almost like the audience are absorbing two conversations at once which is an extremely efficient way to build characters. We hear their life stories in a way that's completely self absorbed and yet somehow desperate for attention or affection, depending on who is speaking. It's that tension, those hidden desires, that bring the heart to the film. It's also a testament to what happens when you make funny people do something serious; you get something seriously funny. 

Whilst its final third loses its pacing somewhat, the editing of the sections becoming somewhat jarring, it more than makes up for it with its brilliant performances, witty writing, and touching dramedy. 

Sandler Wexler

Today's review is brought to you in anticipation of an exciting development of my life in film analysis. I will soon be releasing a video essay on the filmography of Adam Sandler and to celebrate and prepare you for this event, let's take a look at his most recent release. This is Sandy Wexler.

The titular Sandy (Adam Sandler) is a talent manager; not a talent agent though, he's quick to point out that the former means family. He has a small body of odd-job clients on the lowest rung of entertainment which he lies to constantly and a party of other celebrities inform us through faux-interviews about Sandy's other annoying habits. Despite having the appeal of a toad, Sandler manages to sign Courtney Clarke (Jennifer Hudson), a young singer who has that something special. As her talent is recognised and Sandy's affections for her grow, she begins to be drawn to the bigger agencies and the disappointment begins to affect Sandy's work and relationships.

Sandy Wexler is one of Sandler's completely unjustified now eight film deal. However, it is also the most complete. Don't misunderstand this, the film is heavily flawed, but after his last two dismal efforts (that is, The Ridiculous 6 and The Do-Over), Sandy Wexler almost seems good. It's by no means Sandler's best performance or even close, but it is consistent and oddly likeable. Despite all of Sandy's habits, he is strangely charming with Sandler fitting the role well. It gave purpose to his annoying voices, though at times they can grate. Oscar winner Hudson doesn't feel out of place here either and seems to draw out Sandler's better performance, similar to the way Jack Nicholson did in Anger Management. This being said, Sandy seems older than Sandler and Courtney feels younger than Hudson, creating a jarring and uncomfortable tension between the romantic leads. It never quite feels natural or professional - he is her manager after all.

Where Sandy Wexler falls down is primarily in every other aspect. It's length is completely unnecessary; there is not enough narrative to fill its two hour runtime, which leaves director Steven Brill cutting away to too many celebrity talking heads, and spending too much time with pointless side characters (do Nick Swanson's daredevil or Jackie Sandler's struggling actress add anything to the story arch at all?). Despite that extra length, the conclusion is entirely unsatisfactory and unrealistic. Throughout the second half of the movie, Sandy's career starts to plummet but after one nonsensical scene where he is literally a puppet for ventriloquist Ted Rafferty (Kevin James), everything suddenly turns around but without rhyme or reason. It's a little bit too neat and a huge let down. However, there are some redeeming factors. There are some excellent lighting choices and, perhaps an even rarer experience in a Sandler movie, some genuinely funny moments.

The stakes in Sandy Wexler are never quite high enough to make us care. Is the love story, Courtney's success, or the rest of Wexler Artist's careers the main focus on the story? What's Sandy's objective? It's clunky and messy, but endearing and charming. The support cast are predictably terrible, Rob Schneider is again playing the token foreigner, but Sandy has a heart it's not some lazy half-assed attempt at story-telling like Sadler's recent outings. It's the first time in years that Sandler is producing a story he seems to care about and while it is not a great success, it is a step in the right direction.

The Meanest Yard

Two birds with one stone here. A film and it's modern remake.

The Longest Yard, (Or Mean Machine in England,) was made in 1974. 36 years on and it is still a very funny film.

Burt Reynolds/Adam Sandler is Paul Crewe, an ex American Footballer, sent to prison for violently abusing his wife, escaping the cops in an amusing fasion, ditching the car in a body of water then beating up a couple of policemen. In prison, The Warden (Eddie Albert/James Cromwell) convinces him to start a football team to face the guards semi-pro team. With help from Caretaker (James Hampton/ Chris Rock) and Nate Scarboro (Michael Conrad/Burt Reynolds) he forms a team of big bad convicts to help him beat the guards.

Burt Reynolds was secretly Iron Man under his shirt.

The warden was shocked.

The original first. I have no problems with the acting. The four main characters are all brilliant. Reynolds is sly and witty but also shows some heart at points when with (and at some points without) Caretaker. Speaking of Caretaker, James 'Jim' Hampton was also great as his part but he wasn't quite outgoing enough... Just my thought. Eddie Albert was, personally, the highlight acting wise. He started warm and friendly but became a domineering, power hungry, reputation focused man. Michael Conrand was also fantastic as Nate Scarboro.

What I do have issues with is the pace. It's a good half an hour from the cop chase to when he pieces the team together and even then it's still slow... It drags. When they start picking up crazed murderers and training it gets good. The final 47 minutes are taken up by the final game between the guards and the convicts and it's a pleasure to watch. I also disliked the editing.... How it was nominated for an Oscar I will never know. It looked like someone had done the scene transitions on Movie Maker.

"Hi Paul Crewe... I'm Paul Crewe.... From the past."

Now I'm not normally a fan of remakes but I make an exception in this case. I like most of Adam Sandler's comedy but it does grate a little I suppose. This was the beggining of his transition into more serious films. He provides very little of the humour and does more serious stuff. Chris Rock is funny and has a much stronger personality than James Hampton and I think that's better in a prison, don't you? Burt Renyolds is also a better Nate I think. He's more amusing and he looks stronger, like an ex football player. The supporting cast are equally as funny as the original though the dumb jokes fall flat more. Nelly is awesome as Megget the running back.

Oh the soundtrak is all R 'n' B, some is good.... Some is too much.


There are scenes in both that I really like that aren't in the other or that are better.

1974-The 'Why did you throw that game' scene, the police chase, the ripped shirt in the game.

2005- The try outs, the game plays, the rehearsing in the mud, the final plays (A lot less cliche!)


All in all these are both good films but the remake is certainly one to watch with your mates with some drinks and snacks whereas the original is a Sunday afternoon sort of film... Know what I mean?


BOTH FILMS: