TheHumbleCritic

"Team America" is mostly a riot from start to finish. I say mostly because it's a little uneven in its humor, certainly not as consistently funny as the creators' predecessor, which was just itching to take the film away from the censors on Comedy Central. The new flick has splotches of dead plot advancement that rely too heavily on sitcom-like repetition for its laughs, like in moments where the main character must go through a period of self-reflection or when he tries to return and redeem himself to his policing comrades, which becomes a little too similar to those awful action flicks that Trey Parker and Matt Stone are trying to mock. The film also indulges in excessive vulgarity in some instances. As amusing as it might sound, the laughter slowly subsides after witnessing a puppet vomiting for nigh three minutes, or after hearing the same gay sex jokes again and again. Crassness for the sake of being crass, where profanities replace witticisms in the case of the Kim Jong Il puppet towards the end of the film, is surprisingly dry and boring.

But aside from this, the film is bawdy and hilarious for those not too defensive about being left-leaning. In other words, if your idol is Tim Robbins for his politics and not his acting, than you might be disconcerted to see him take an NPR to the head. Or Matt Damon, who is portrayed as too stupid to say anything but his own name. And on and on. The great joy these writers take to show Michael Moore (hot dog and pizza in either hand) being blown up is only funny if you think these self-absorbed celebrities deserve it. Some critics have said the jokes stop being funny once they become too "personal." Well, they're only personal to the snobby, elitist film critics who hobnob and eat cheese regularly with these glamourpusses. That doesn't constitute 99.99% of us, so feel free to laugh without remorse.

While the film is molded in the same framework of the aforementioned formulaic drivel, Parker and Stone are always mocking the genre while sending their own message and agenda. The guys are staunch Republicans as they skewer the celebrity left, Hans Blix, Peter Jennings, etc. But they also see the excess in which Americans indulge, both at home and abroad. A heat-seeking missile that "missed the target" in a crowded Parisian marketplace means the decimation of the Eiffel Tower, and in various instances they also nail Americans' obsession with their own isolated lives and relationships, particularly in an airplane dogfight scene where the characters simultaneously discuss who is sleeping with whom while shooting down North Korean jets. It is as much a satire as it is a parody, and the film does both to equally funny effect with sing-along numbers like "'Pearl Harbor' Sucked, and I Need You."

But the puppets are the real meat of this film, and a special mention goes out to Kim Jong Il. He's a North Korean version of "South Park's" Cartmann, full of profanities, the same thirst for power, and the same whiny petulance. As a well-known lover of film (he kidnapped a Japanese director and made the poor fellow make a movie for him), Kim might be flattered with his portrayal here. His solo, "I'm So Ronery," quite frankly steals the show.

"Sideways" has been called many things by a number of critics, so I'll try hard not to be repetitious or indulge in witticisms by comparing the strengths or weaknesses in the film to some type of wine. It's the return of the buddy flick - sure enough - smartly written, sharply acted, and though maybe a bit long, does not succumb to repetition itself. These plaudits are all true, as many others have noted, and the film's detractors have chosen to nitpick on specifics like the nondescript visual presentation or the pedestrian grouse that director/writer Alexander Payne is condescending towards his characters. The first complaint is a bit bizarre and misplaced. The romantic comedies of the forties and fifties were never subjected to such grievance because critics and the audience knew that the strength of those films lied in deft storytelling, brilliant dialogue, and natural, well-paced acting, all hallmarks exhibited in "Sideways." To note that the film has too many car shots or sun-soaked vistas is like saying Hitchcock didn't incorporate enough witty banter or flatulence jokes in "Psycho." To put it another way, if you're actually trying to figure out the details of that patio scene and how the camera is framing the whole thing instead of actually listening to Virginia Madsen and Paul Giamatti discourse beautifully about wine and themselves, then you might be missing out on the pleasures this film really displays. Concerning the second gripe, it's puzzling why any critic would consider less than flattering portrayals of characters on screen as "condescending," other than a prescribing of one's worldview over Payne's. As Henry James advised, folks, we should grant the artist his donnee and then see what he does with it before judging him or the work. If Payne's outlook isn't full of smiles and lollipops, and if his heroes aren't moral paragons, or worse, exhibit hypocritical flaws (gasp!), this shouldn't be considered an error before the execution of the work. To judge otherwise reflects more on the viewer's critical temperament than Payne's wry eye.

What Payne has accomplished here is incredible stuff that has been elucidated by many other erudite reviewers. The film is poignant but still edgy and hilarious, often moving between such opposed emotions within single scenes. It's no easy feat to do this without resorting to mawkish extremes, but Payne does it with ease, and one only witness the brilliant denouement to observe this balance of pathos and comedy exhibited so effortlessly. I'm sorry, but this is a fine film, and it shouldn't concern any of us whether it's "great" or simply "good." In an age where BAD films are awarded globular balls and golden nudes, I see nothing wrong with possibly over-praising something as good as "Sideways." Leave such trivialities of self-indulgence to well-paid, ad-supported media critics who should know better, while us amateurs can have the luxury of simply enjoying the thing.