Sour Grapes

You could almost call "Sour Grapes", "Seinfeld: The Movie". A lot of the rhythm is like the show expanded (and with profanity) to 90 minutes. The plot is sitcom-ville but it's workable and serves as a good setup. Two cousins, Evan (Steve Weber) and Richie (Criag Bierko) travel to Atlantic City. When Richie runs out of money for a gambling machine and asks Evan for two quarters, Richie ends up winning a jackpot. Evan feels he's entitled to half of the loot but Richie feels differently. From there the plot escalates as each enacts some kind of revenge and relates his feelings to his friends, co-workers and family with sides being taken and a lot of very expressive opinions being made by all. Now, some of the banter works quite well. For example, there's a well done scene where Evan (who's a doctor of some sort) doesn't want to see any patients (for reasons that are too complex to go into but suffice to say it involves the removal of some vital male structures). He asks his receptionist to tell all the patients waiting to go. She asks him should she tell them individually or as a group? The exchange is pure, classic Larry David and it's played with such understatement that it's a joy. Another bit later on involves Larry David himself (in a toupee!!) playing a brash `Hollywood' type who somehow gets into how Eskimos would handle punishment. But as the plot escalates into more and more bizarre situations and setups, the film becomes strained and the comedy suffers. As Director and Writer, Larry David weaves so many characters and plot elements into the mix that he seems desperate to come up with an ending that will pull all the strings together in a satisfying way. Like many of even the best of the `Seinfeld' episodes, he simply ends the movie with a drab almost eventless ending that feels like a cheat. With all that came before it, we feel that we deserve some kind of big ending. Though it's not a great movie, Stanley Kramer's `It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World' had a `big' ending that felt exactly right in contrast to all the "madcap" elements that came before it no matter how forced and unfunny. Maybe David felt he was being revolutionary or something in not giving into the basic comedic instinct for this kind of ending. But we're talking about low comedy not high art.

The performances are fine. Steven Weber is a good comedic actor. His yuppie handsomeness is perfect for David's lines and he underplays certain scenes wonderfully. You can see his shock registering every times something goes wrong and he wonders how he got into all of this. Craig Bierko overplays a lot of his scenes by mugging but given the nature of his character (he's basically selfish and obnoxious) it's consistent and he never lets up on it. One thing you cannot fault David is his casting of African-Americans and older actors even if they are all supporting roles. And he gives them lines and situations that have comedic punch. Overall, `Sour Grapes' is watchable, passable, entertainment. Not a great movie comedy but it certainly has it's moments.

For all of the good things i had heard about this movie, i was very disappointed. This movie was nothing more than an extention of Seinfeld, which was co-created and written by Larry David. There are conversations about hotel sex and Craig Beirko reminded me of George with his constantly reminding everyone that a doctor didn't hold a door for him. Even the parody of "Friends", wasn't funny. Larry David is a smart and witty guy, but this movie was just a miss.

Frankly, I find this movie difficult to watch every time. So many things occur that just seem to spiral down into chaos causing chaos causing chaos. The main characters, at first...you take a side...then eventually you'll realize that neither are in the right. But one does something to the other, which is unspeakably terrible...and receives the same in turn. Eventually when it's all over, something ultimately terrible happens. Suspense is not only something that relates to a horror film, in my opinion...upon seeing this film. The director perfected it to an almost migraine inducing level. If you are patient, this movie is fantastic. If you're not, and you simply can't stand it...well perhaps this isn't for you.

I really don't know whats wrong with people. Movies that really suck and are devoid of any humor are considered funny and movies that are genuinely funny get a 5.2 rating? So this movie isn't exactly supposed to be intelligent or thought provoking or even too subtle for that matter but what it does is make you laugh. Not just slight chuckles but laugh till your stomach hurts.

The lead characters also do a pretty good job. The guy who wins the million dollars has a dialogue delivery style very similar to Norm McDonald (which is a good thing). It has this underlying sarcastic tone that makes almost anything he says funny. Like the Seinfeld series this movie too isn't about a real plot or anything but its amazing how creative people can be making you laugh with some of the silliest gags ever. After watching this film I felt light-headed. Almost anything seemed to amuse me after that. All day I had this annoying grin on my face with sudden outbursts of laughter just thinking about the movie. I know a good/funny movie when I see one. This one is genuinely funny. Try not to look for meaning or depth in it and you'll love it. Take my word for it. Its well worth your time.

Although it's been a long time since I've seen Sour Grapes, the experience of seeing it- preferably alongside another Seinfeld fan- was fairly pleasant, in that biting Larry David tone. This was the only time David wrote and directed a film, and it does show that he's giving a good try to tell a story within the framework of a film feature all the way through. It's somehow quite an entertaining piece of quietly (or not so quietly) deranged satire on envy, sexual frustration, and the condition of a principle of something. The premise is simple- two good friends go out to Las Vegas to gamble, one friend asks the other for a quarter for a slot machine, and via the quarter in the slot machine the guy wins a helluva lot of money. By the friend with the original quarter's estimation, a part of that change is his, but the friend now says that it isn't. A likely Seinfeld sub-plot is stretched out so that the ideas are given a little breathing room, even if one recognizes that, perhaps, it would be a masterpiece if it were simply a Seinfeld episode, or more appropriately a Curb Your Enthusiasm with even more acidic humor and total unease thrown at the situation.

Around the premise, David also tosses in a supporting character who has one of his testicles removed- the wrong one by the doctor, who is one of the friends- and despite his now high voice (ho-ho) he seeks out some payback. That's one of the clearest big gags, as obvious as it is, is the moment when the 'testicle-man', as one might be tempted to describe him, is told by the doctor that the wrong one was taken out during surgery, to his immediate fainted response in a cut-away. On top of this, David experiments with some stupid sex humor (not that there wasn't at least a little later on on CYE, eg Jeff's mother's ass at a stoplight), like with Bierko's character in the self-humiliation of not being able to, um, 'service' himself in a certain way, under the stress of the tear in the friendship. As mentioned, none of this really makes for the kind of classic comedy one might expect, or crave, from maybe one of the only geniuses (yeah, I said it) working in comedy today. But as almost something of a fluke, it does its job well.