POPSTAR is the best comedy in years; so why is hardly anyone seeing it?

Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping is uproariously funny, original, and unfortunately, an enormous flop at the box office. Tellingly, Neighbors 2, the sequel to a decent 2014 comedy, made slightly more in its third weekend ($4.9 million) than Popstar in its opening one ($4.7 million).

But before we discuss what went wrong at the box office, let’s talk about why the movie itself worked.

Conner4Real (Andy Samberg) is an amalgamation of modern music. Specifically, there’s a touch of Justin Bieber (as the film’s subtitle alludes), Macklemore (the hysterical “Equal Rights” song), and the Beastie Boys (Conner’s former star-making trio, The Style Boyz). The general 2016 music tropes are hilariously parodied too, including catch phrases, dance-craze songs (“The Donkey Roll”), gratuitously sexual lyrics, narcissism, an aggressive preference for youth, and guest stars galore. Adam Levine, Pink, Seal, LINKIN PARK, Michael Bolton, and even actress Emma Stone provide background singing on the hysterical soundtrack, which I’ve been essentially listening to on a loop the past few days. Not only are the lyrics funny, the songs are so well produced that you could fool your friends into thinking “Turn Up The Beef” is a top-40 hit.

Most know Samberg as the face of Saturday Night Live’s popular “Digital Shorts”. Far fewer know the other Lonely Island comedy trio members, Jorma Taccone and Akiva Schaffer, Samberg’s childhood friends who directed and co-wrote Popstar with Samberg. Owen (Taccone), Lawrence (Schaffer), and Conner formerly comprised the Style Boyz, but Conner is the group’s breakout star, not unlike Samberg’s relative position to his real-life friends in the comedy business. Obviously, this creates conflict in the story, but I felt the real-life friendship gave the picture a dash of heart I wasn’t expecting.

The relatively unknown Chris Redd also nailed Hunter The Hungry, a hip-hop artist who makes Kanye West appear stable.

“If Popstar is so great, then why did it bomb at the box office?” asked the voice in my head.

Some of the movie’s best jokes couldn’t have been accomplished without an R rating, but you have to assume PG-13 would have gotten more butts in seats. Many are comparing Popstar to This Is Spinal Tap, but Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story is more apt. With Walk Hard, writer Judd Apatow was given his biggest budget and an R rating, and the movie flopped. However, I loved it, and it’s become a cult classic in the DVD and streaming market. Popstar (produced by Apatow) has an excellent chance do the same, but unless people actually buy tickets, we likely won’t get another feature with The Lonely Island boys.

On the bright side, at least Popstar will be unsullied by unnecessary sequels.

James Brown biopic "Get On Up" sizzles

If you haven’t heard of Chadwick Boseman, prepare to hear his name repeatedly during award season.

“Get On Up” is the life story of James Brown, “The Godfather of Soul”, and Boseman’s transformational performance as Brown is unforgettable. His appearance in literally the first frame is eerie; Boseman nails Brown’s speech pattern and mannerisms, exuding charisma, arrogance and brilliance, often in the same scene.

Brown was a complicated man, and the film plants those seeds by interspersing (mostly horrifying) moments from his childhood. He could be sweet and empathetic; shortly after Martin Luther King’s death, “James” uses his influence to calm tensions between an emotional crowd and the police at the Boston Garden. But he could also be selfish, menacing, and violent. In an upsetting scene, he brutally strikes his wife, DeeDee (Jill Scott), a pattern of violence he learned from his estranged father.

Despite Brown’s deep flaws, he became one of the most beloved and iconic Americans in history; his music and showmanship are undeniable. Similarly, Boseman’s performance raises the level of everything and everyone around him.

In addition to childhood flashbacks, the movie has a non-linear time structure. Fortunately, the hair, make-up and costume people are exemplary. Little Richard (Brandon Smith) was instantly recognizable. The contrast in styles from the different eras made the time jumps far more effective than they otherwise would have been.

An excellent supporting cast, many of which are reunited with director Tate Taylor from “The Help”, joins Boseman. Nelsan Ellis (Bobby Byrd), Viola Davis (Susie Brown), and Octavia Spencer (Aunt Honey), all appeared in the 2011 film, with Spencer winning the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. Dan Aykroyd, who appeared with James Brown in “The Blues Brothers”, plays Ben Bart, James’ manager and friend.

I love James Brown’s music, and there is a lot of it here. If you’re a fan, you will enjoy every second of seeing the live performances recreated. But if you don’t like this genre, then those parts may feel like a slog. I was practically dancing in my seat, surely looking every bit as lame as Syd Nathan’s take on the “Mashed Potato”.

Criticisms of the film’s historical accuracy are already popping up, as they often do with biopics. But it isn’t a documentary, and I have difficulty, for instance, slamming the movie for possibly giving Brown slightly more credit for his business acumen than he deserved. William Wallace probably didn’t scream, “FREEDOM!” at the precise moment Mel Gibson does in “Braveheart”, but the line fits the movie and the character. Similarly, “Get On Up” captures Brown’s essence and place in history without pandering.

My biggest question is: Why did James break the fourth wall multiple times? It was bizarre and unnecessary. Each time James addressed the audience, I was taken out of the movie.

From a business perspective, it’s also unfortunate that the movie’s first two weeks in theatres coincided with the openings of two box-office hits, “Guardians of the Galaxy” and “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles”. The movie business has been slow this summer, and if “Get On Up” had been released during almost any other week, it would have likely grossed more than $22.9 million it has thus far.

If that poor timing costs Boseman the recognition he deserves, that would be a travesty.

I want more Melissa and less "Tammy"

Comedians can be a vicious breed, a trait most obvious when they’re dividing their peers into those with “chops” (true comedic talent) and those essentially “acting” humorously.

Melissa McCarthy proved her chops as a three-time host of “Saturday Night Live” with a pastiche of mostly cartoonish characters. Her performances on the show are so humorous, joining Steve Martin and Tom Hanks in The Five Timers Club is inevitable.

“Tammy” is written by McCarthy and her husband, Ben Falcone, and obviously, writing and starring in a movie shows your chops too. Ultimately, that is what makes “Tammy” one of the year’s biggest disappointments.

On “SNL”, McCarthy found a different quirk or speech pattern for a variety of delightfully weird characters. But if you’ve seen 2013’s “The Heat”, Tammy is entirely derivative of McCarthy’s character (Mullins) from that film. They are profane, rude, unkempt, and sensitive beneath a gruff exterior, but Tammy is a far less likable. Mullins is the female version of the classic “plays by his own rules” cop, and is flanked by the stoic, by-the-book Sandra Bullock, giving McCarthy a straight woman to play off. 

Conversely, Tammy’s main foil is her debauched grandmother, Pearl (Susan Sarandon). Pearl is often more Tammy than Tammy, popping pills, swigging whiskey, and flashing her naughty bits. When Tammy is fired from her fast-food gig and subsequently catches her husband cheating, she wants to leave town. But without money, a working vehicle, or help from her mother, Deb (Allison Janney), she is apparently stuck. Fortunately, Pearl has cash, a car, and a burning desire to see Niagara Falls.

And thus, comedy ensues, at least in theory. The tone is never clear, however. Cartoonish main characters often work in comedy, but the second lead is rarely equally zany. (“Dumb & Dumber” is a notable exception, but notice no one even approaches one percent of Jim Carrey’s antics in “Ace Ventura” or “Liar Liar”. Likewise, Sacha Baron Cohen’s Borat and Bruno are always the absurdist center of a situation with normal people.) While Tammy pushes the comedic ball forward in the first act, as soon as Pearl is introduced, they seemingly take turns being disgusting or disgusted. Neither character makes a convincing straight woman.

Moreover, in the last 20-30 minutes of the movie, the tone becomes much more serious, as we delve into Pearl’s addiction, Tammy’s awful behavior, and their family issues. Unfortunately, I couldn’t have cared less about any of it, and the dramatic tone shift only served to derail what little comedy was there. When a 96-minute comedy feels like it’s dragging, that is a horrible sign.

Finally, Sarandon and Janney were both bizarre casting choices based on their ages. Sarandon is 24 years older than McCarthy, and again, we’re supposed to believe that Sarandon is her grandmother. Simply putting a gray-perm wig on one of the best looking and famous 67-year-old women on the planet is not enough to make me believe she’s a 43-year-old’s grandmother. Furthermore, based on real-life ages, Deb was apparently 11 when she birthed Tammy. The question is, why wasn’t Pearl the mother instead of the grandmother? Little about the story would change except plausibility. I guess Hollywood thinks drunken grandmothers are funnier than drunken moms, and apparently, Betty White was unavailable.

 “Tammy” has a handful of laughs, but ultimately, there aren’t enough to justify your viewing. You can do much better. I’m certain McCarthy has a better movie in her too.

"Guardians of the Galaxy" Review

In 2009, Disney paid $4 billion for Marvel Entertainment, acquiring major brands such as Spider-Man, X-Men, and The Avengers. Back then, it’s safe to say Disney executives weren’t banking on a $94 million opening weekend from “Guardians of the Galaxy”, but here we are, another comic-book-adaption juggernaut is upon us.

“Guardians” has many trappings of the modern studio system: a ragtag group of intergalactic misfits are united by circumstance against an evil force, that quite fortunately, is led by a mammoth ship with a tiny weakness (“Star Wars”); there is an Object of Great Significance and plenty of grand, computer-generated battles (“Lord of the Rings”); and if you’re an executive, there is a high-concept pitch (it’s “Ghostbusters” in space) and previous source material like virtually every modern blockbuster.

But instead of descending into cliché, the movie plays off conventions from the recent deluge of superhero films. “Guardians” has exquisite timing, released during a period where some moviegoers are suffering superhero fatigue. It is as much comedy as action, with humor ranging from meta to sophomoric. Fortunately, director James Gunn and co-writer Nicole Perlman balance these different tones skillfully. Zaniness abounds, but the three villains are the typical snarling, robustly confident evildoers you expect from this genre, but the fact that they aren’t played for laughs adds real stakes. The movie never veers into “Scary Movie” territory.

“Guardians” likely won’t eclipse 2012’s “Marvel’s The Avengers” at the box office, but “Guardians” succeeds where “Avengers” struggled. After a promising start, “Avengers” dives headlong into the action without bothering to make the audience care about any of the characters. The movie seemed to rely on previous films and comic books for characterization.

“Guardians” takes no such shortcuts. In a tight 121 minutes, there are few asides; the action and jokes move the story along and develop the characters. Unlike “Avengers”, I cared much more by the end, not less, thanks to some unique and fun characters.

Chris Pratt stars as Peter Quill, who as a boy, was kidnapped by an extraterrestrial spaceship literally seconds after his mother died of cancer. (What Disney movie would be complete without a dead mom?) But this rather dark opening transitions to our first tone shift. We flash forward 20-something years, and Peter is very much Andy Dwyer, Pratt’s lovable goofball from NBC’s “Parks and Recreation”, dancing away to one of his last earthly possessions: his mother’s beloved mix tape. Honestly, I’ve seen enough Walkman jokes for one lifetime, but the running gag killed in the theatre. Unfortunately, I felt somewhat underwhelmed by some of Peter’s hijinks, because he felt like a poor man’s Andy. Admittedly, that may be my “Parks and Rec” bias getting in the way, because based on the crowd’s reactions, I was in a small minority.

Fortunately, the supporting characters are outstanding. Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper) is a brash, smart aleck raccoon, the result of botched experiments. He and his bounty-hunting partner Groot, a human-like tree, is Chewbacca-esque in his delivery (it’s the role Vin Diesel was born to voice) but also delivers surprising heart and humor. The duo attempts to cash-in on Peter’s bounty, but all three are imprisoned together in the scrum’s wake. Gamora (Zoe Saldana) is also imprisoned, and as per leading-lady rules, Peter initially repulses her.

Inside prison, the fivesome is quickly completed when the gang meets Drax The Destroyer (WWE star Dave Bautista). Like the film itself, Drax is more than meets the eye Rocket is trying to steal from you. Drax is indeed a hulking presence (pun intended), but he’s also introspective, he has an extensive vocabulary, and best of all, he is hilariously unable to recognize “Metaphor!”

Ultimately, how much you like “Guardians” depends on personal preference. If you love this genre, this is your next go-to franchise. But even if you hate the genre, you can’t hate this movie. It pokes fun at the genre’s tired elements while also maintaining some of the traditions that make action, fantasy films work. And that’s good news for all types of moviegoers, because like it or not, we’re getting more of these movies. They might as well be more original.

What makes a stock valuable, and how does one compare it to other stocks?

A share of stock is simply a fractional piece of a company’s earnings.

In 2012, Apple earned $44.16 per share. On January 25, Apple (ticker symbol: AAPL) traded as high as $456.23 per share. Why would someone pay more than 10 times the price of AAPL’s earnings? Because some believe AAPL’s earnings will grow in the future.

Stocks are mere pieces of paper. Unlike owning a house, a car, or even a baseball card, the only reason to own a stock is investment. Stock investments increase through earnings growth and multiple expansion.

Publically traded companies are legally required to report their earnings four times a year. Of course, that doesn’t stop traders, brokers, pundits, journalists, analysts, and media personalities from speculating about future earnings and their growth, or lack thereof. And more importantly, the stock market is open for trading for far more than four days a year; it’s open Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 4:00 PM EST, and the market is never closed for more than three consecutive days. The day after Christmas is trading time!

Considering 43.1 million shares of AAPL changed hands on January 25 alone, it’s clear why stock prices fluctuate much more rapidly than things that are not bought and sold on an exchange. These long days and weeks (and for some, minutes and seconds) between quarters leave plenty of room for speculation and the gamut of emotions: Euphoria, panic, boredom, you name it. Sometimes those feelings are rational, and sometimes they aren’t. The point is, understanding stocks requires much more than crunching numbers.

But how does one value the intangible?

With stocks, you do it with the price-to-earnings ratio, commonly known as the “PE ratio” or “multiple”.

Here’s the equation: Price divided by Earnings equals Multiple.

P/E = M.

For example, let’s say AAPL’s last trade was $450. I want to know AAPL’s PE ratio (multiple) for 2012. As previously stated, AAPL earned $44.16 per share in 2012.

$450 (price) / $44.16 (earnings) = 10.19 (multiple).

So, AAPL trades at 10.19 times its 2012 earnings. In order to compare stocks to each other, you have to know their multiples (more on that later).

For the sake of discussion, let’s use the equation to solve for price. Price equals Earnings times Multiple.

P = E x M.

By looking at this equation, we can clearly see that a larger E (earnings) or larger M (multiple) would give us a higher stock price. But again, companies typically report earnings four times a year. The vast majority of a stock’s price fluctuation is based on the changing multiple (i.e. what people are willing to pay for the company’s earnings). You could say a multiple measures public sentiment, which is another way of saying “demand”. 

Of course, defining “demand” is much easier than figuring out where supply and demand will increase and decrease in the future. That is the key to investing in anything, stocks included.

Speaking of supply, it’s key to answering the next entry’s title question, “How can Facebook at $31 be more expensive than Apple at $450?”