Great comedies can inarguably walk the line between being hilarious and heartfelt. So many comedies fail at balancing this line that it undoubtedly becomes increasingly harder to nail down the perfect formula for what really works versus what does not. But for some comedies, they are more than just great. They are timeless and created so well, almost by accident, that one can endlessly quote from them, and even allow them to become part of their everyday vernacular. Sure you may be stealing and may end up being completely unoriginal (attested by those who quote The Hangover, Wedding Crashers and the ninety-two words that make up the full title for Borat a bit too often), but these sorts of films stand up for some period of time, and sometimes become classics mentioned in the same breath as Oscar-winners.

This brings me to Paul, which in writing sounds like a comedic goldmine. It is written by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, the British imports who headlined Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, easily two of the best comedies of the last decade (Pegg was also responsible for co-writing both with Edgar Wright, who was suspiciously missing here). It is directed by Greg Mottola, who directed the hilarious Superbad and wrote/directed the greatly underrated Adventureland. The film revolves around two British comic book geeks named Graeme and Clive (Pegg and Frost) who run into the title character, a foul-mouthed alien (voiced by slacker poster-child Seth Rogen) who is on the run from the government. Like all “good” aliens, Paul just wants to go home, so despite the great danger, Graeme and Clive set out to help him.

I wanted to adore Paul, but sadly, it was not meant to be. I cannot pin point the exact moment or line, but after it happens, the film veers off the tracks and becomes almost embarrassing to watch. The idea for the film, and almost the entirety of the first act suggest it really has a lot going for it. But as the film really amps up, and the plot really starts to come to fruition, it just starts to unravel piece by piece. When two of the biggest plot points in a science-fiction parody film are perceived homosexuality and the inability to accept the concept of evolution, you must know something has gone horribly wrong from idea to final product.

What made Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz so great was that they took their respective genres (zombie horror and buddy cop action thrillers) and created brilliant parodies that captured exactly what was wrong and so lovable about their genres. In the process, they ended up creating films that could stand alongside the films they were parodying, and easily became among the best films in their genres. This must have been the initial goal with Paul for Pegg and Frost, but instead they helped create a contrived film that is not all that funny. It has all the references and suggested lines that I figured it would have, and even adds some clever ideas about how Paul may have helped influence every alien entry into pop culture (a conversation with Steven Spielberg about how he should make E.T. is of particular note). But sadly, that is not enough to make the film better.

Paul’s biggest problem, unlike its British counterparts, is quite simply that it does not have a good enough story to fill in around the references. It has a misguided idea of where it wants to go, and as a result, seems to move along for a few moments before running straight into certain ideas and situations just for the sake of adding in a reference (do we really need a bar scene with a hick band playing the Cantina song from Star Wars?). It never seems able to stay on a relatively straight path, and it suffers and wavers along as a result of it. When it starts to get into the headier subjects like homosexuality and religion, it begins to look like it has no idea what it wants to be at all. I realize that Pegg and Frost likely wanted to take a big shot at Americans with adding these ideas in (despite the film being American-made), but they have no place here. They feel like they were added simply to add extra conflict to a plot whose biggest conflict is not strong enough to maintain the film’s lean 95-minute runtime. But then, that suggests another problem -- where was Mottola on all this? Why does it seem like most of the comedic control was left to Pegg and Frost? Mottola has proven himself a worthy comedic director, so why does the film seem to merely exist to try and copy what made Shaun and Fuzz so great? So many questions, but not nearly enough answers.

Pegg and Frost do what they can to shine in their roles, but look uncomfortable in most of their scenes. Rogen seems to be in a vacuum between overused and underused. Like the plot, it does not seem able to figure out what it really wants to do with him. And let me tell you, hearing Rogen swear his face off as a computer generated alien is only funny the first three-times he does it, not for the entire film. Kristen Wiig and Jason Bateman have a few funny moments, but are never really given a moment to really make something of their characters. Joe Lo Truglio and especially Bill Hader are likely the funniest characters in the whole film, but they are not used nearly enough.

There are a lot of hilarious moments sprinkled throughout Paul, and more than enough elements to have made an enjoyable film. But they are never cohesive enough to hold the film together. It is a tragic disappointment, considering all of the talent involved. As a Pegg/Frost fan, I hoped for so much more.

   -- David Baldwin