"Paul" has all the hallmarks of a cult hit: It's a road−trip movie starring, and written by, fan favorites Simon Pegg and Nick Frost ("Shaun of the Dead" (2004) and "Hot Fuzz" (2007)), about two nerds who team up with a wiseacre alien while traveling through the American West. It has a stellar cast, great special effects, strong jokes and a clever plot. But it will almost definitely fail at the box office, and it's a damn shame.
Following a visit to Comic−Con, two British nerds, Graeme Willy (Pegg) and Clive Gollings (Frost), continue a geek's dream vacation by renting an R.V. and trekking to various sites of UFO−related significance in the United States. On their adventure, the Brits happen across Paul (Seth Rogan), an alien on an escape mission. After 60 years of helping the government and influencing pop culture (a great subplot involves Paul lending Spielberg — who literally phones in a cameo — ideas for his movies, mainly 1982's "E.T."), Paul finds out that the government plans to harvest his brain. So naturally he chooses to escape.
Cue dramatic tension.
Hot on the heels of Paul and his new friends are government agents and angry citizens, including Zoil (Jason Bateman), the lead agent, and his incompetent underlings, Haggard (Bill Hader) and O'Reilley (Joe Lo Truglio). Wacko Christian Moses Buggs (John Carroll Lynch) joins the chase too, thinking he's trying to save his daughter Ruth (Kristen Wiig), who was originally kidnapped by Paul and Co. (by accident) but eventually joins their cause.
The plot is fairly simple and straightforward, but the cast — a veritable who's−who of comedy — runs with the sharp script. It is jam−packed with jokes, geeky−as−hell cultural references and some great reoccurring gags — a standout of which is Wiig's character, a reforming born−again Christian, learning to curse.
Paul himself is computer−generated, but the effects are so well−done that it's easy to suspend disbelief and forget that the cast isn't actually interacting with a little green man.
Pegg and Frost play close to their tried−and−true character beats, switching things up slightly to let Frost shine rather than play second fiddle. The biggest revelation of the film, however, is Hader as an action hero: Besides being achingly funny, he manages to run and gun with the best of them. Hader, a current "Saturday Night Live" cast member, has had small roles in a number of recent films, but his scene−stealing turn as Haggard in "Paul" proves that he has the chops to carry a movie.
The film strikes a good balance between action and comedy, allowing director Greg Mottola to expand his oeuvre. Things explode real good, cars drive quite quickly and many a gun is fired. The action feels akin to early Spielberg, clearly a major influence on the film ("Duel" (1971)) is seen playing at a movie theater, and a number of references are made to "Sugarland Express" (1974)).
They really don't make movies like "Paul" anymore; it's a deceptively simple affair. A lot happens but it isn't an event of a movie. It's fun the whole way through but isn't necessarily the movie that people are expecting. The trailers, the concept, the actors involved: The package seems to promise one thing while "Paul" presents something else.
But it happens to be an equally enjoyable replacement, if not more so.
The greatest knock against "Paul" is no fault of the filmmakers, but rather an issue with roots in the current Hollywood system: "Paul" has earned an "R" rating. Its audience has been severely impinged on by this rating.
At heart it's a family adventure movie as written by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, two men who are definitely poster boys (emphasis on "boys") for the concept of rejuveniles. There's a scene where Paul dances around the question of whether Graeme and Clive are lovers by pantomiming various sexual acts, and it isn't hard to imagine that the guys made the movie just to be able to spend millions of dollars to have a CGI alien mime fellatio.
The alien−demonstrated B.J. and some salty language (the F−bomb is dropped far more often than the arbitrary two times allowed in a PG−13 movie) aside, "Paul" deserves a wide audience. It isn't free of flaws — some segments feel superfluous, and the twist ending makes no difference to the preceding two hours — but it's a fun, strong adventure comedy. I won't go as far as to say that "Paul" is out of this world, but it's pretty close.
I had the opportunity to talk to Pegg and Frost a week before the film's U.S. release, and they were clearly proud of what they accomplished. I asked about the possibility of a sequel, to which Frost first jokingly responded "Pauls," but then admitted that it probably won't happen.
I'm not holding my breath either.
At the end of the day though, "Paul" is a nice movie. It's lacking something, but its very existence is still thrilling. Pegg and Frost made the exact movie — or as close to it as possible in Hollywood — that they wanted to.
So go see "Paul." But then, if you don't, you'll probably be able to catch it constantly on basic cable in a few years.
