'Paul' Review

'Shaun of the Dead' and 'Hot Fuzz' are two of the premier satire films of the past decade, both hilarious, heartfelt and spawned from the collective minds of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. These clever Brits are at it again in 2011 with the extra-terrestrial comedy, 'Paul,' however this outta-this-world comedy falls flat on its premise and brings those with high hopes back down to Earth. Ultimately it is a charming movie that doesn't offer enough laughs.

What did the alien say to the garden gnome?
Take me to your weeder.

Graeme (Pegg) and Clive (Frost) are two sci-fi nerds who have travelled to San Diego, CA for the annual Comic Con convention, ogling at almost everything. Clive writes graphic novels and hopes that meeting his idol, Adam Shadowchild (Jeffrey Tambor) will help him on his path to success, but this doesn't work out the way Clive would have hoped. On their way back across the country they discover Paul (Seth Rogen), an alien who disputes every perceived stereotype of himself. Paul is being hunted by the government, most notably the hardcore Agent Zoil (Jason Bateman) and the incompetent Haggard (Bill Hader) and O'Reilly (Joe Lo Truglio). This central conflict sets the scene for a race across the dessert in order for Paul to return to his mother ship and take him back home.

The film is sweet and sentimental but it lacks in gags- and clearly that is the most important aspect to any comedy film. Most of the films attempted jokes are spawned from the misunderstanding people have for Paul, and aliens in general; a joke that is dragged endlessly through the entirety of the film, and, while it may have been funny the first time, by the end it was terribly hard to bear witness. The major problem here is that there is just not enough going on: there is the central conflict and chase, a love angle between Graeme and Kristen Wiig's character, and thats about it. The film is a very lightly pack hour and a half, not going to the lengths that would be expected from a Pegg- Frost film.

Whereas in many comedies the films supporting cast steal the show and often offer many of the films most memorable lines, it was not the case with 'Paul.' Bateman's character was remarkably uninspired and Hader/ Truglio's characters were so much less than their incompetent ways demanded.

Chalk this films failure up to one thing- the poor writing. Lack of gags, references to TV shows that aired in 1992, zero interesting characters, this film is a veritable failure no matter which way it is sliced. If taken seriously this film is 'E.T.' if taken as a comedy this film is a waste of time. And while not terrible, 'Paul' has to be the most disappointing film of the year so far.

4/10 - Spend your money elsewhere.