Ted 2

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Seth MacFarlane/Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Seth McFarlane (Voice), Amanda Seyfried, Jessica Barth, Morgan Freeman, Giovanni Ribisi and John Carroll Lynch

If you found the foul-mouthed, pot-smoking teddy bear from Ted amusing, Ted 2 will most likely be your creme brulee. I thought there was no way I would ever see a sequel after the gag response I had during the first movie. I really don't mind a bear who swears and tokes; the idea seems like fun but there was something revolting about Ted that I can't quite put my finger on. It isn't the crude, moronic humor--hell, most American movie comedies have that in common. At least this iteration was more gleeful in its pursuit of the obscene. I don't know if the sequel is better or I was better prepared to expect less, but Ted 2 seems less painful and bit more palatable than its predecessor. It's still imbecilic, mind you, but it manages to coax a few chuckles.

All you need to know about the story is that John (Mark Wahlberg) and his teddy bear chum Ted (Seth MacFarlane-voice) are still paling around, watching T.V. together and pulling sophomoric stunts, like pelting joggers and bicyclists with apples from a building rooftop. Their banter is often crude, as you might expect but they manage to be funny every so often.

Ted and his human wife Tami-Lynn (Jessica Barth) have set up a home in their modest apartment while earning a meager living as grocery store clerks. When the film begins, we see their marriage has hit a rough patch. Unsure of how to remedy marital strife, Ted seeks the counsel of a co-worker, who suggests the couple have a baby. Excited by the prospect of being parents, Ted and Tami-Lynn search for a sperm donor (Ted is unable to share procreative duties, for obvious reasons).

Ted hatches a hair-brained scheme to steal a sample of New England Patriots' quarterback Tom Brady's semen for his wife's fertilization. Ted and John break into Tom Brady's mansion, where they find the snoozing quarterback, only to be caught and literally thrown out. The scene is fairly amusing, as Brady's recent scandal also takes a satirical jab. Ted then approaches Sam Jones (he of Flash Gordon fame) to solicit his seed, only to be told his years of drug use have rendered him unable to comply. Further travails ensue when Ted learns Tami-Lynn's womb is overly stressed from years of drug use, which makes artificial insemination moot. Adoption becomes the logical alternative.

But Ted and Tami Lynn's problems only accrue when they learn the state refuses to recognize him as a human being, thus denying him the opportunity to adopt. Ted's diminished citizen status also means cancelled credit cards and terminated employment.

Undeterred, John and Ted hope to sue the state for his civil rights by seeking legal representation from a novice lawyer named Samantha L. Jackson (Amanda Seyfried); whose name becomes a source of merriment. Her woeful lack of pop culture knowledge also makes her a target for John and Ted's ridicule.

A trial by jury follows, which ends badly for Ted, as he is denied person status. Still determined to prove otherwise, Ted, John and Samantha seek out the legendary lawyer Patrick Meighan (Morgan Freeman) for more high-profile representation. Meighan's impassioned speech, which compares Ted's situation to the infamous Dred Scott case, tests the boundaries of good taste. Somehow it manages to not seem like a transgression in a film that often skirts the periphery of offensive, ethnic humor.
The film also comes close to being misogynistic but it manages to narrowly avoid that pitfall too.

While a smoldering romance between John and Samantha begins to blossom, Ted's fate hangs in the balance (not really, is it ever in doubt?).

The gags and jokes in the first half of the film wane in the second as the earnestness of Ted's civil rights case assumes center stage. As aforementioned, the jokes are mostly puerile but to quibble about that would be ridiculous. No one comes to a Ted movie expecting Moliere-like wit.

The numerous cameos are fun. One of my favorites involves an appearance by Liam Neeson as he queries Ted about buying a box of Trix cereal while standing in the checkout aisle.

Mark Wahlberg is a real sport for his willingness to muck about in a film that celebrates dumbness in all its incarnations. Ditto for Amanda Seyfried and Morgan Freeman, who manage to emerge with their dignity intact. Maybe I'm being too stodgy. Ted 2 is too harmless and inconsequential to be pilloried further.

It really isn't necessary for me to say more; the trailer says it all. Mr. MacFarlane, can we bury the teddy bear once and for all, please?

The Gambler

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Rupert Wyatt/Starring: Mark Wahlberg, John Goodman, Alvin Ing, Brie Larson, Jessica Lange and Michael Kenneth Williams

I'll never quite fathom remakes. Unless a director or producer feels the original was an utter pile of bat guano demanding re-tooling, then I suppose the effort makes sense. But Hollywood history is littered with cinematic rubbish some producer or director felt needed to be retold or made current. I've seen very few remakes that best the original. And what do such ill-conceived endeavors often produce? Useless, vacuous, retreads that lack the original film's dramatic power, wit, humor, charm or spirit.

So movie screens are carrying director Rupert Wyatt's remake of the 1974 film of the same name and I again find myself asking rhetorically: Why? And why The Gambler? Did James Caan not perform his part well, or did the film suffer in some way that made Wyatt or the current producers (Wahlberg among them) itch? Was there an impassioned movement, membership a million strong, clamoring for a remake? If so, why was I not made aware of this? I suppose I could devote a blog-post solely to questions regarding remakes but I won't exhaust your eyes with something so pointless.

Mark Wahlberg plays Jim Bennett, literature professor, author and pathological gambler. When we first see him, he is having a run of luck at a blackjack table in an illicit gambling establishment. Rather than playing sensibly, Bennett transfers his winnings to the roulette table, where he places all his chips on black, but the ball falls on red. His all or nothing approach to gambling is his MO in the film, which brings him misfortune and trouble.

Bennett's freewheeling gambling habit leaves him with prodigious debts to underworld figures who become a ubiquitous presence in his life. A Korean kingpin named Mr. Lee (Alvin Ing), whose illegal gambling houses Bennett frequents, allows the professor to run up a $250,000 debt, which he demands in seven days time. Another shadowy wraith to whom Bennett is indebted is Neville Baraka (Michael Kenneth Williams), who is keen to level his own threats.

When not gambling, Bennett teaches literature at a local university and in his class is a young woman named Amy Phillips (Brie Larson, in a thankless, underwritten role), who is employed in one of Mr. Lee's establishments.

I'm not sure Mark Wahlberg makes a convincing literature professor. I can't picture him actually picking up a copy of Albert Camus' The Stranger or sharing his insights on the book in class. Actually, it may be one of the only books mentioned in his course. Bennett takes up a lot of class-time (and screen time) hectoring his students about their lack of writing talent, though he singles out Amy for her exceptional writing skills. We have to take his word for it; we never see any evidence in the film that would substantiate his value judgement.

A romance between Bennett and Amy percolates, which his dire gambling situation complicates. The relationship is very unconvincing. The lack of chemistry between the two is one of the film's salient failings. Aside from Bennett's lofty praise and her link to his extracurricular life, the relationship is the screenwriter's far-fetched contrivance.

As the days to the deadline are counted onscreen, Bennett seeks out his mother Roberta (Jessica Lange, doing terrific work in a small role), whose wealth offers him his only recourse to debt alleviation. World-weary and edgy, Roberta receives her son's plea for an exorbitant amount with a degree of outrage but she agrees to his request; citing fear of losing another family-member as her means to justifying her action. The subsequent scene in the bank of Roberta and Jim sitting before a puzzled manager is one of the film's best moments (of which there are a scant number).

Rather than eliminate his debt, the self-destructive, volatile Bennett decides to gamble with the money; a catastrophic act that is too mind-boggling to imagine and too painful to watch.

What are the psychological underpinnings of Bennett's gambling? One might say it is merely a gambling addiction but that practical explanation isn't enough to characterize his reasons for such aggressive, manic behavior. It's hardly the thrill of risk, for Bennett doesn't exhibit any elation or high from gambling. A flimsy, existential motivation is subtly posited but no explanation is really satisfying. Except maybe profound stupidity.

Having foolishly and recklessly gambled his mother's money away, Bennett has little choice but to borrow a sizable sum from a dangerous loan shark named Frank (John Goodman), who issues his own vague but ominous threats. But unlike Mr. Lee and Neville, Frank takes a paternal interest in Bennett, though the threats remain.

With the deadline only days away, Bennett hatches a plan that involves offering a basketball star in his class a chunk of cash to moderate his performance on-court to cover the spread on the odds. Bennett's plan to satisfy all his debts with the winnings is risky, dangerous and contingent on the player meeting his end of the deal.

I don't know about the original film--I haven't seen it in years--but this iteration seems more than just a bit silly. Wahlberg's over-the-top classroom theatrics don't resemble that of any literature professor I encountered in college. Wahlberg is a terrific actor given an appropriate role, but his broody-cool demeanor isn't mysterious, just hokey. Brie Larson, whose breakthrough performance in Short Term 12 showcased some fine acting, may as well be a hologram for all that is expected of her in the film. Her motivations are limited to; adore Jim Bennett and then adore him some. The more intriguing performances belong to Lange, John Goodman as the Jabba-the-Hut-like loan shark and Michael Kenneth Williams, who also does much with so little.

Whatever motivates Bennett seems nebulous and nonsensical. Nothing about his character or his predicament is recognizably human. Does he learn anything from his follies? It is hard to say; Jim Bennett remains a cipher to the end.

The ending is what it is; hardly unexpected and unsatisfying. But what does one expect of a remake? I wish I could recommend the original but as I mentioned earlier, I haven't seen it in years so I can't vouch for its quality here.

I'm sorry to say this will be the last film for which I offer an impression in 2014. If only my last posting could have been A Most Violent Year, a film I have yet to see but is earning rave reviews. That will have to wait until January. For now, let my final blog-post for the year end with a whimper and a groan, while I hope for better cinematic experiences in 2015. See you there.