Jerry Seinfeld’s cereal comedy Unfrosted is just a little soggy
Jokes fly fast and loose in this Airplane! for the Air era, but only some land safely
Film Reviews Seinfeld
Jerry Seinfeld has never been a great actor. He’d agree that surrounding himself with comedic performers like Jason Alexander and Julia Louis-Dreyfus made his sitcom sing more than his acting chops. So, why he decided not only to star in but also direct Unfrosted, a lighter-than-air 96-minute Super Bowl commercial for Kellogg’s, is beyond us. Nine seasons of Seinfeld proves the comedian has a screen presence. He just doesn’t know how to film it.
While Seinfeld might not know acting, he does know cereal. His love for those wheat-based milk swimmers is well documented across his decade on television, where he was frequently found slurping down one bowl after another. Even the Pop-Tart has a storied place in Seinfeld lore. In 2012, The New York Times interviewed him about joke craft, which he exemplified through rough drafts on the invention of the Pop-Tart, material he had been working on for two years at the time. This Pop-Tart material has legs. Unfrosted is by no means a failure. But it’s also about as satisfying as a soggy bowl of cereal. Loaded with his famous friends, Unfrosted is fitfully funny, depending on who’s on screen. Trained actors, improvisers, and sketch comedians help elevate scenes to functionality, but the consummate stand-up lets the production down.
In the early ‘60s, Bob Cabana (Seinfeld), head of marketing at Kellogg’s, basks in the success of another Bowl & Spoon awards, where the company’s breakfast confections and colorful mascots cleaned up. But the demeanor of his rival, Marjorie Post (Amy Schumer), left him suspicious. Later, he finds a pair of kids rooting around the Post dumpster for pie crust and jelly. Kids in the trash are the canary in the coal mine: Begun, the Pop-Tart war has.
Mapping the space race onto mid-century breakfast trends, Seinfeld uses the plot as a vehicle for jokes, not commentary. The toxic air of brand subservience permeates the screen, with characters often discussing just how great these products are. Like many of these “based on a brand” movies, there’s little reflection on making a film about an executive turning a billion-dollar corporation into a multi-billion-dollar corporation. There’s room for an Airplane! in the Air era, but Unfrosted is too in love with its inspiration.
Of course, to Seinfeld, this movie is about nothing. So, while Unfrosted might inch perilously close to Foodfight!, it avoids comparison by aiming for the lowest denominator. Whatever serves the joke is best for the scene—logic is thankfully not part of this balanced breakfast. Snap (Kyle Mooney), Crackle (Mikey Day), and Pop (Drew Tarver) are presented as living people. At the same time, Tony The Tiger is played by Shakespearian thespian Thurl Ravenscroft (Hugh Grant, once again, the MVP).
Unfrosted ebbs and flows depending on who’s in front of the camera. A scene between Thurl and Milkman Mike (Christian Slater) inherently has more power because it’s between two actors investing in a shared reality. Things are a bit shakier with Seinfeld, who remains at his best when tossing off asides. When Kellogg’s head, Edsel Kellogg III (Jim Gaffigan), accuses him of not having feelings—an insult pointed at the actor more than the character—he brushes it off. “I feel fine,” he says. His assertive delivery works because he’s reacting honestly to his partner. It makes sense that editor Evan Henke cut this into a series of close-ups. When Seinfeld shares a frame with other actors, he looks as if he’s waiting for his screen partner to finish talking so he can deliver one of his punchlines.
Written with Seinfeld’s Bee Movie scribes Spike Feresten, Andy Robin, and Barry Marder, the script does give the best material to those around its star, notably Melissa McCarthy, who plays breakfast genius Donna “Stan” Stankowski. Stan has so much more life than Bob, who has a wife (a vanishing Rachael Harris) and goals (afford sod). Stan registers the wackiness around her with a range of emotions that Seinfeld’s half-in-half-out approach can’t match. But like the prize inside, or a maze on the back of the box, Seinfeld’s caravan of side characters are what make the movie. Bobby Moynihan’s Chef Boyardee and an escaped sentient breakfast ravioli provide solid runners, while Kyle Dunnigan’s depressed Walter Cronkite nearly steals the whole thing in three scenes. As the Quaker Oats guy, Andy Daly finds a stronger comedic angle than just about any of the above-the-line players.
Shot by legendary cinematographer Bill Pope (The Matrix, Spider-Man 2), Unfrosted also boasts a surprisingly distinct visual sensibility. Seinfeld has affection for Mad Men, and Unfrosted benefits from that show’s aesthetic. Yet Seinfeld’s flat blocking and coverage don’t do much with it. Often, we’re stuck in shot-reverse-shot loops, with characters taking turns dropping breakfast-based zingers. Seinfeld’s inventiveness shines when he and Pope play hard with the premise, as in a late-stage milk-heavy funeral. Despite being known for observational humor that puts slight social infractions under the microscope, Seinfeld-as-director is better at orchestrating these grander moments than expected.
Seinfeld has genuine love for these mascots, this era, and this meal. There’s no irony in his fondness for the cereal business. One might wonder why he didn’t simply write an hour of stand-up material on the subject instead of this belabored trifle. Nevertheless, there’s something beautiful about a stand-up, known for hating everything, making a movie about the one thing he loves: eating and drinking at the same time with one hand. It is the most important meal, after all.
87 Comments
What’s going to happen when Jim Gaffigan and Andy Richter finally meet in the middle after a long decade of slowly morphing into each other?
They do this:And become Ultimate Comedian Jimdy Ritchigan, as they planned from the beginning.
I barely remember Andy Richter working with O’Brien. Did he use self-deprecating humor because I don’t see any resemblance.
Sounds like a brain injury?
We finally get the Hot Pocket movie we’ve all been clamouring for. ·…caliente pocket…
“How Did It Burn My Tongue When the Rest Is Ice Cold?”Jokes aside, that might be a good title for a one-off podcast about shitty microwave meals.
I think we would be in a “bad part of Hancock” situation.
I’ll note again that Blackberry is easily the best of these product biopic movies, simply for having the guts to not just end at the high point of the product’s success but instead go all the way to the point where it irreparably ended. The final visual metaphor for the company hitting rock bottom, which has been perfectly set up through the whole movie, made me gasp out loud in the theater.
It is easily the best, not least because the product that it is about is dead and therefore the film does not need to operate as an advertisement. It feels more like an actual story being told, and without the oversight of a corporation looking to protect its brand.(Having said this it is also heavily fictionalized, so take it with a grain of salt.)
I hate to pee on your parade, but I found it too trope-y…is he going to use china? of course. is he going to betray his dumbass best friend who plays it broader than Chris Farley ever could have? of course. is it just a regional-specific The Social Network?
I don’t think it’s trying to trade in surprise though. It’s chronicling a man’s downfall and the people and company he brought with him. Right from the beginning we see that Ballsilie is a prick who doesn’t really understand the product. He knows that it’s the first of its kind, but he only really bets on it because he has nothing left to lose. He probably wouldn’t have invested in the company if he didn’t think he could bully the owners.The Social Network was more about the cost of success, whereas Blackberry was about the cost of hubris.
RIM was in the process of building a massive office complex in the suburbs of Toronto just as their shit fell apart, but before the public caught on. This was only a few blocks away from where I lived at the time.
That empty construction site stayed up for nearly a decade after RIM closed before someone took it over. Haven’t seen the movie but the idea that you could fail so fucking fast after success seemed all but guaranteed stuck with me. Reminded me of Blockbuster, frankly.
They were in serious-enough consideration for an NHL team at one point, if I remember correctly.
Why didn’t they just make a video game out of it? I don’t play them and, actually, I can’t imagine how this would be a video game but it’s already stupid so why not take it to another level of stupid?
Why, it could be the best food-based product video game tie-in since Sneak King (which is a game about, you guessed it, no not Frank Stallone, The Burger King mascot).
So this is an actual real movie that you’ve actually seen?
Any cameos from the Crunch Enhancer? It’s a non nutritive cereal varnish. Semi-permeable, but not osmotic.
Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas. Kiss my ass. Kiss his ass. Kiss your ass. Happy Hanukah.
No one can work with Chevy Chase.
Chris Columbus chose to continue sleeping on his brother’s couch.
Dammit I can’t stop watching that.
wheat-basedI’d like to introduce you to the US corn lobby.
It must be really offensive just filled with swears and slurs going by what Jerry Seinfeld was talking about. Sorry I’m too “woke” for the Pop Tart movie. I guess I’ll watch something wholesome like Always Sunny in Philadelphia or American Dad reruns.
This is not a coherent thought. Try again.
Is that what Jerry Seinfeld is known for? “Hating everything?”A weariness at trying to meet the standards of a closed-loop society and a hesitancy to engage with sincerity, sure. “Hating everything” feels way off. There’s too much of a gentle eagerness to be liked that I just have such a hard time associating such a strong sentiment to Jerry Seinfeld, especially at the end of a review that compares his efforts to a soggy bowl of cereal.
I agree. “Hating everything” is not how I think of Jerry Seinfeld. That’s more Bill Hicks, Dennis Leary (himself a Bill Hicks cover band) and late George Carlin. What makes Jerry Seinfeld such an exhausting cunt is that he believes himself to be the guy best equipped to tell the world what should be hated.
Awesome, now that this is getting (deserved, probably) bad press, will we see Seinfeld go full “the woke mob assassinated my movie” mode?
He already has, almost like he knew this movie sucked before its release.
Seems like if he wanted that defense he would have made this movie more edgy, which ironically, by the sounds of it, would have actually made the movie better.
Other than the show Seinfeld, this is probably the most legacy-enhancing work . . . for Larry David.
Anybody that walked out of Bee Movie and didn’t realize Jerry wasn’t exactly doing the heavy lifting on Seinfeld gets another chance
Like, 9 times outta 10 where I’ve seen people discuss Seinfeld characters it’s always George, Kramer, Elaine, George’s family, the memorable one-shots like the Soup Nazi or Lt. Bookman, any number of supporting characters like Puddy or Kenny Bania, Kramer’s friends you never see like Lomez or Bob Sacamano…but not the show’s titular character.
While I’m sure someone is going to say “duh Jerry is the straight man LOL” – even the straight man gets a good joke in once in a while. Meanwhile Seinfeld was kind of the textbook definition of a trite stand up comedian (“what’s the DEAL with airline food?”) even when his show was huge.
Yeah, even back in the day it wasn’t so much funny as “Huh. Yeah. I kinda see where you’re coming from.”His “jerk” character trait was meant to be that he was really anal and fastidious…but that was hardly played up. It gets mentioned in ep where the girl he’s dating uses the toothbrush he knocked into the toilet – but that would gross anyone out. At best, he was just a catalyst for the more memorable and crazy characters around him. Hell, he could barely keep a straight face himself most of the time, and his real-life personality was exactly the same as his on-screen “persona”. Meanwhile, one of the greatest things ever is listening to Jason Alexander, a seriously smart actual thespian, discussing his work and sitcom history as an intelligent man…and trying to reconcile that with his character – a short, stocky, slow-witted bald man:
There are a few moments like when Jerry says “That’s a shame” or faces off against Newman that I think are funny. I don’t think you could remove Jerry from the show, because it’s the chemistry between all four of them that works.
I think Jerry brings a much lighter touch to that show, an aloofness that makes the other characters seem more normal. He’s the everyman, and he’s also the straight man in a way. Jerry’s standup was never him telling jokes, but rather remarking on the absurdities of life. On the show he’s observing all of the crazy things that go on around him, and sometimes commenting on them.Curb Your Enthusiasm focuses on the George/Larry character, and is a lot darker. It’s meaner, but that works better in the single camera format. The sitcom format of Seinfeld works better with a seemingly normal guy as the main character, because we need to identify with someone who isn’t as crazy as the rest. George is too pathetic, Elaine is too angry, and Kramer is too bizarre.Jerry might not be anyone’s favourite character, but he’s an essential component of the show. I think people today read too much of Jerry’s real life persona into some of the more smug moments of the character. It was a real 90’s ting for him to be this detached guy who just joked about everything that happened. Maybe it worked better then.
Who are the ad wizards that came up with this one?
Oh, Charles. Charles, Charles, Charles. So naive.It wasn’t any person or persons. This is Netflix, baby! It was a cold, soulless, inhuman algorithm.
I dunno, this movie is 96 minutes long, all the reviews say it has a decent number of laughs in it…if SNL makes me really laugh three or four times in an episode, it was a good episode, so I’ll probably see this. It doesn’t have a lot of competition for comedies worth seeing right now, in film anyway (can’t wait for Hacks). Also, I really do like Seinfeld’s stand-up, his actual stand-up, mostly the early stuff, I enjoy the OCD precision of watching the same bit chance .0001%. That said, of course must be noted that his “woke” thing is pathetically stupid, Larry David was the real force behind the show, etc., but that’s not fatal for me, he just said some dumb old out-of-touch white guy shit, he didn’t go the full Bill Maher.
Thats pretty much how I feel too. I’ll continue to watch Seinfeld re runs and ignore the actual guy and hope he doesn’t say something super racist before he dies
How about the time he dated a 17-year-old at age 38? What are your thoughts on that?
My thoughts on it are that she has never come out and said she felt victimized by him, he has not continued that pattern of solely dating women much younger than him (such as DiCaprio), it was 30 years ago (like it or not the culture did not condemn this kind of thing back then as much as it does now), and to keep bringing it up as some kind of gotcha is tedious. Was it creepy? Sure. Is he a criminal? No.
I did forget about that. I would say that the fact that they dated for four years makes it a little less horrible than it could be, but it’s still bad (they made it vague whether the “dating” actually started when she was 17 or 18…still once you are asking that question you are in a really bad place). It’s not the same as shouting the N word or…well…being whatever Bill Maher has turned into.
It’s nice the AV Club lets someone who will make excuses for pedophilia out of the greys.
As long as the “dating” was only in New York, 17 is the age of consent.
We are in a bad conversation if we are even observing that, because “is it actually illegal?” is a bad question to be asking in any conversation…but I will note that, as 18 is the age of majority, even if it is legal at 17, if the person is 18 at least the 38 year-old will not be looked at like a complete sex criminal, even if they will be considered extremely damaged and deeply skeezy. Obviously in 1978 things were different (ahem Manhattan), and in 1990 somewhat different, but if a 38 year-old dates an 18 year-old today unless it’s Leo DiCaprio society will basically break out dateline on them. I will observe that there is a misogynistic element in thinking that an 18 year-old adult woman is necessarily being “groomed” exploited what have you in that situation, that there is necessarily an unconscionable power imbalance, and online there will be pitchforks even for maybe a 40 year-old and a 25 year-old, as if 25 years old is still a child, but overall I think it’s for the better. And hopefully stops some people from sleeping with their professors, yuck, stick to TAs people!
As a woman who was once 17, if it’s okay with her, it’s okay with me.
The age of adulthood is an arbitrary date, so I kind of understand what you’re saying, but it’s an arbitrary age limit that protects those who aren’t ready, even if you were.
He made a career observing the minutiae of the 80s and early 90s, and now that his fussy, inoffensive schtick is old hat, he blames PC culture. It’s actually funny. I’m surprised he’s willing to work with Jim Gaffigan, who’s successful at exactly the kind of inoffensive, food obsessed comedy Seinfeld can’t do anymore.
Replying to myself so as not to accidentally loose a gray I should not: the written lines are not great, they keep doing that “this couldn’t possibly happen in the future” corny shit…but the offhand absurdist lines kind of are making it worth continuing, the 50s kids are pretty funny, the parts that are intentionally stupid are funny (like the mop cam and follow-up), it’s when they try to be funny they’re not funny, there are too many “isn’t that weird” reaction shots and clunky setups instead of just letting the joke land (why does McCarthy have to say “I can’t believe he’s still doing the bit” before Seinfeld says “He’s a professional” instead of just having Seinfeld’s line), Rachel Harris has taken Judy Greer’s crown for the most thankless roles…it does remind me of the National Lampoon movie that also had every comedic actor in the world in it and also could have been a lot better. It is an odd study of comedic delivery though…there’s no reason why Amy Schumer saying “I had them flipped over on their backs…like a turtle” should be funny, but it is. The funeral is too premeditated and has too many “well that was weird” moments which are my least favorite part of SNL, but the way the coffin was floating in the milk and they just had that in the corner of the shot was kind of brilliant, there’s also a payoff with the mascot uprising that is funny until they have Tom Lennon underline it and kill the joke…which they do often…in fact they kill a lot of the jokes by repeating and explaining them. It was a bad movie, but I was home sick from work, shrug. The Jimmy Fallon Megan Trainor song might be worse than “Friday”
oh hold on there, bub. Let’s hover for a moment on the “woke” statement / non-controversy. He was also taking into account the attacks on Chapelle and comedy acts (and that’s really the key word – “acts”) that zingers are a lot too sensitive about. They are indeed acts. It’s a rarity that any stand-up doesn’t want to push buttons because that’s how emotions are made. The problem isn’t the comedy – that parts been around for a long, long time, with acts from very, very funny and intentionally abrasive acts from greats like Rickles, Bruce, Foxx, Pryor, Hicks, Rivers, and Carlin. This is who Seinfeld, Rock and all their buddies in Comedian As much as I love Larry David he left the show after I think season 7, and came back to write the finale of Seinfeld. And while he was instrumental in taking it as far as it went, the force would be the writers that churned out 20+ episodes every year for all those years.That said, I’m a reasonable left-winger, so I’m siding side with Nick Cave on all things woke – partly because it’s a ridiculous concept that’s been carried too far, partly because I can’t stand those who vacantly throw the term around, and just quote Cave’s excellent “I am left feeling bored and cornered by the hubris of their own sureness” in regards to the whole matter.
If I’m bored, I might check it out.
It really is just a stupid, harmless (and short!) movie. Perfect to fold laundry to.
I can tell you exactly why he didn’t write an hour of stand-up about it instead. My friends and I saw the Seinfeld/Gaffigan tour last year and it was pretty tough. He had some potentially funny premises but the only punchlines were an exasperated voice. Luckily Gaffigan’s half mostly saved the night but I was incredibly underwhelmed. Jerry simply does not know how to write stand-up any more.
lol
There’s room for an Airplane! in the Air eraSorry, I’m apparently dumb. What’s the Air in reference to here?
The Ben Affleck movie about how Nike signed Michael Jordan and heroically became a multi-billion-dollar corporation.
Oh… seems like kind of apples and oranges, no? This is just another product placement movie, whereas Airplane! was a genuine satire of disaster movies.
Well, that’s kind of the point. There have been a few movies like Air recently that celebrate the origins of big companies and/or products. So this film is to them as Airplane! was to disaster movies in the 1970s.
Oh, so this IS a satire? That didn’t come across in the review. I thought it was actually sponsored by Kelloggs. The reviewer makes it sound that way. Anyway, I get it.
I think the issue is that this could have been such a satire, but didn’t quite get there (or maybe didn’t want to, which is fine I guess but could be frustrating if it’s clear the potential was there).
It can (try and) be 2 things!
Noone would expect a straightforward adaptation with this cast, and it sounds like what we all thought throughout the run-up: Not really a satire, but full of safely funnyish people doing safely funnyish things to seem less like the outright hagiography that was Air, with it being about a product that seemingly has always been around in the background rather than something that was a Big Deal like the Air Jordans, as to elicit a “A movie about that? Who’d’a thunk?” feint.Like the theoretical Jim Gaffigan-headlined Hot Pockets movie everyone and their mother has since thought of. Not exactly a story in need of being told, but he’d take their money and inevitably deliver something chuckle-ful but not gut-bustery that barely hides the fact it’s a desperate PR exercise and whole-ass-movie funded by Generic Foodstuffs Incorporated LLC to remind you of a food you might have buried in your freezer for in case you don’t have real food around.
Was hoping for a higher grade. My spec script for Quisp v. Quake: Dawn of Justice will never get picked up now. It would star Timothy Chalamet and Dwayne Johnson. Failing that, Austin Butler and Vin Diesel. Third choice? Jacob Trembley and Alan Ritchson.
OMG! I didn’t think anyone else remembered Quisp and Quake. I was a Quisp man myself. Sooo much sugar. So delicious.
I really wish Amy Schumer would stop getting work, but I guess it makes sense for her to appear in this, given that Seinfeld’s making the news for being tone-deaf.
She’ll never reach her career high of starring in tampon commercials
Genocidal maniacs love working with each other.
Sounds like some rando can’t seem to work out how “Woke” ideology is antithetical to comedy. Thanks, but I’ll listen to a legend of comedy instead, bud.
the poptart is pretty interesting but ill pass on seinfeld
I feel personally offended by this review because the movie was somewhere between boring and meh but soggy is the only way I like to eat cereal. I pour a bowl and wait five minutes. That’s weird I guess? My brother thought so when he described me his get rich scheme of bowls with two parts ie one for milk and one for cereal. I think he thought I was just playing devils advocate as I usually do but no I hate crunchy cereal. Only thing I hate more is hearing people crunch on it in a TV show or movie which surprisingly (spoilers!) didn’t happen in this movie or at such a low volume I didn’t notice.
The film would have been a whole lot better if comedy hadn’t been destroyed by the Extreme Left.
We did it!!! Wooooooooo!!
One might wonder why he didn’t simply write an hour of stand-up material on the subject instead of this belabored trifle.Who pissed in your Corn Flakes?
Watch Seinfeld blame a tepid response to this on wokeness….oh wait…
It’s a Netflix movie, you watch it while doing something else, get some laughs and if you miss part of it, that’s fine.
Watched it, it was fine. Kyle Dunnigan makes it worth it.
‘Kyle Dunnigan’, ‘Kyle Dunnigan’…where have I heard that name before?*google*Professor Blastoff!
I just watched this, and would give it a solid B. Part of the reason is probably that I’m older (though still younger than Jerry Seinfeld). The 60s references were a big part of my childhood, so the nostalgia aspect was fun. And I thought there were some clever references, like Mad Men and the 1/6 insurrection (which wasn’t subtle at all, and included Grant’s character directly quoting Trump). Pretty, pretty clever.
Snap (Kyle Mooney), Crackle (Mikey Day), and Pop (Drew Tarver) are presented as living people.No, they’re mascots. They’re people in costumes, just like Tony the Tiger, and the dozens of other mascots that appear. We just don’t see them take the costumes off.This is not a difficult movie to understand.
Yeah this movie is getting a lot of flak, but I think people are also taking it a bit to seriously. It’s a fun, silly movie. It’s not great art or anything, but it’s entertaining enough. Yeah, the tone is weird and uneven at times, and Seinfeld isn’t that funny in it. But there were some genuinely funny parts. Don’t over think it and it’s perfectly enjoyable.
This isn’t the kind of place where people don’t overthink (by which I assume you mean being slightly critical and having above lowest common denominator standards) movies.
I watched this last night. It was really just an excuse for a deep bench of b-list comedians doing their thing with a simple, unchallenging script. I’m a sucker for the period, and the hyper stylized visuals were fun. I had maybe 3 legit laughs, including the one perfect cameo scene, but didn’t come away actively angry at this movie as some seem to be.
Lukewarm take: We need more short, 80’s-style stupid comedies like this. Not everything has to be prestige and bloated.
This was funny. But I think the things most people miss that explain the mixed reaction is this comedy is 100% for people over 40. Younger people will not get half the jokes. The thing about this movie is it unapologetically does not even try to appeal to younger people. They have Bill Burr playing Kennedy doing specific Kennedy burns. It is a delightfully absurd movie. But for people who get the references. I think too many critics are ignoring that this movie is not for everyone, nor does it try to be for everyone.