Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated David Brent: Life on the Road (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A squirm-athon from beginning to end.
“Life on the Road” is a mockumentary sequel to the classic British version of the TV comedy “The Office” (obviously later remade for the US market and featuring Steve Carell). Ricky Gervais played the ego-centric David Brent, a monster of a character who exercised what little control he had in his managerial role at a Slough paper company.
Here in “Life on the Road” we join Brent 15 years later where he has taken a rung or two down the career ladder and is working as a sales rep for Lavachem, a sanitary goods manufacturer, also based in Slough.
But Brent still harbours a dream of making it big in the rock world with his middle-of-the-road band called ‘Foregone Conclusion (2)’. Gathering around him his ethnic rapper ‘friend’ Dom Johnson (Doc Brown) and a band of session musicians (who can’t stand him), Brent cashes in “several pensions” to fund a tour of the venues of Berkshire… or at least, those that will give stage time over to a “shite band”. As the tour delivers predictably diminishing returns, and no record-company interest (at least, not in him) Brent is forced to face his inner demons and some uncomfortable truths.
Bringing TV comedy characters to screen is fraught with difficulty, and few have successfully done it. Even legends like Morecambe and Wise struggled with a series of lacklustre films. Perhaps in recent times Steve Coogan’s Alan Partridge has come closest with “Alan Partridge – Alpha Papa” and indeed there are a lot of similarities visible between Partridge and Brent: both have extreme ego issues and self-centredness. But there are significant differences as well, for while Partridge is just an irritatingly loud and obnoxious minor-celebrity Brent – as this film makes much clearer – has real mental illness.
Brent - the sun shines out of his earhole.
Brent – the sun shines out of his earhole.
Is this therefore a comedy at all? Well, yes, but in a very black way. There are certainly moments of excellent humour, with the tattooing scene being a high-point. But the result of watching Brent’s progressive decline, with his nervous laugh as a constant ‘fingernails on chalk board’ reminder of his insecurity, results in a level of audience squirming that is palpable. Everything he does is perverse, from describing in excruciating detail every song before singing it, to spending his money on multiple hotel rooms when every gig is within the County of Berkshire.
As a black comedy its important that it doesn’t outstay its welcome, and at 96 minutes it doesn’t. However, the film lacks the courage of its own dark convictions, and unnecessarily switches tack in the last reel to provide a degree of redemption for Brent. Whilst ‘sweet’, it is also implausible given what’s happened before and I would have suspected the interference of the director in lightening the mood of the writer’s original intent. However, as Gervais is both writer and director, there is no such excuse. That’s a shame.
So, in summary, an uncomfortable watch that aligns appropriately with the high squirm factor of the original TV show. Prepare to laugh, but feel a bit guilty in doing so.
Here in “Life on the Road” we join Brent 15 years later where he has taken a rung or two down the career ladder and is working as a sales rep for Lavachem, a sanitary goods manufacturer, also based in Slough.
But Brent still harbours a dream of making it big in the rock world with his middle-of-the-road band called ‘Foregone Conclusion (2)’. Gathering around him his ethnic rapper ‘friend’ Dom Johnson (Doc Brown) and a band of session musicians (who can’t stand him), Brent cashes in “several pensions” to fund a tour of the venues of Berkshire… or at least, those that will give stage time over to a “shite band”. As the tour delivers predictably diminishing returns, and no record-company interest (at least, not in him) Brent is forced to face his inner demons and some uncomfortable truths.
Bringing TV comedy characters to screen is fraught with difficulty, and few have successfully done it. Even legends like Morecambe and Wise struggled with a series of lacklustre films. Perhaps in recent times Steve Coogan’s Alan Partridge has come closest with “Alan Partridge – Alpha Papa” and indeed there are a lot of similarities visible between Partridge and Brent: both have extreme ego issues and self-centredness. But there are significant differences as well, for while Partridge is just an irritatingly loud and obnoxious minor-celebrity Brent – as this film makes much clearer – has real mental illness.
Brent - the sun shines out of his earhole.
Brent – the sun shines out of his earhole.
Is this therefore a comedy at all? Well, yes, but in a very black way. There are certainly moments of excellent humour, with the tattooing scene being a high-point. But the result of watching Brent’s progressive decline, with his nervous laugh as a constant ‘fingernails on chalk board’ reminder of his insecurity, results in a level of audience squirming that is palpable. Everything he does is perverse, from describing in excruciating detail every song before singing it, to spending his money on multiple hotel rooms when every gig is within the County of Berkshire.
As a black comedy its important that it doesn’t outstay its welcome, and at 96 minutes it doesn’t. However, the film lacks the courage of its own dark convictions, and unnecessarily switches tack in the last reel to provide a degree of redemption for Brent. Whilst ‘sweet’, it is also implausible given what’s happened before and I would have suspected the interference of the director in lightening the mood of the writer’s original intent. However, as Gervais is both writer and director, there is no such excuse. That’s a shame.
So, in summary, an uncomfortable watch that aligns appropriately with the high squirm factor of the original TV show. Prepare to laugh, but feel a bit guilty in doing so.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Beautiful Boy (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I have no doubt that everything in this film was done for a reason, I'm just not sure that those things should have been allowed to make it into the final cut. The major problem for me was the constant chopping and changing of scenes. It was difficult to keep track. At least with other films recently we've been helped by the aging process of the characters, no such luck here.
I'm becoming more and more impressed with Steve Carell's dramatic acting. In a film that lots of people seemed to cry through the only moments that really moved me were performed by Carell. I liked the analytical side of his character and his focus on research, the moment where he reaches his turning point led to some particularly strong pieces for him.
Reading trivia about Timothée Chalamet in this it seems like we have a budding Christian Bale on our hands. He lost a lot of weight for the role and had consultants to ensure his acting as a drug addict was realistic. That was disappointing to read because I didn't find him to be particularly good in this role. That's causing me problems because I'm wondering why everyone is raving about him. I can't see it. While some of his moments are very realistic for the most part it feels like someone who's just acting a role... I know that sounds stupid but I know what I mean.
There are a lot of peripheral characters that come and go, they feel surplus to requirement. The girlfriend and scenes where Nic is with his mother seem wedged in. Had their scenes been taken out and they'd just left the mother's involvement at phone calls with the father then I think we'd have been left with a film that was more like we'd been promised of a father and son's journey. These extra characters just felt misleading.
People were deeply moved by this, more than a few people, myself included, in the showing were not. It suffered from length and some meandering story that I feel ultimately ruined something with a lot of potential.
What you should do
I feel like it's my duty to say that I'm in a minority when it comes to my feelings about this film. I wouldn't recommend it... but plenty of other people would.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would love the picture that Karen was working on in her workshop.
I'm becoming more and more impressed with Steve Carell's dramatic acting. In a film that lots of people seemed to cry through the only moments that really moved me were performed by Carell. I liked the analytical side of his character and his focus on research, the moment where he reaches his turning point led to some particularly strong pieces for him.
Reading trivia about Timothée Chalamet in this it seems like we have a budding Christian Bale on our hands. He lost a lot of weight for the role and had consultants to ensure his acting as a drug addict was realistic. That was disappointing to read because I didn't find him to be particularly good in this role. That's causing me problems because I'm wondering why everyone is raving about him. I can't see it. While some of his moments are very realistic for the most part it feels like someone who's just acting a role... I know that sounds stupid but I know what I mean.
There are a lot of peripheral characters that come and go, they feel surplus to requirement. The girlfriend and scenes where Nic is with his mother seem wedged in. Had their scenes been taken out and they'd just left the mother's involvement at phone calls with the father then I think we'd have been left with a film that was more like we'd been promised of a father and son's journey. These extra characters just felt misleading.
People were deeply moved by this, more than a few people, myself included, in the showing were not. It suffered from length and some meandering story that I feel ultimately ruined something with a lot of potential.
What you should do
I feel like it's my duty to say that I'm in a minority when it comes to my feelings about this film. I wouldn't recommend it... but plenty of other people would.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would love the picture that Karen was working on in her workshop.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Despicable Me 3 (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A disjointed third outing
They’re back. After the ridiculous success of Minions in 2015, Universal pressed ahead with a sequel to their other ridiculously successful animated franchise, Despicable Me.
The first two films were a delightful, if uneven adventure with everybody’s favourite yellow tic-tacs getting their standalone movie that grossed over $1billion. I know, I can’t believe it either.
Now, supervillain turned doting dad Gru is back for another round of animated mayhem. But is this third outing as enjoyable as its predecessors? Or are we starting to feel franchise fatigue?
The mischievous yet hopelessly adorable Minions hope that boss Gru (Steve Carell) will return to a life of crime after the Anti-Villain League fires him. Instead, he travels to Freedonia to meet his long-lost twin brother for the very first time. The siblings soon find themselves in a bickering alliance to take down supervillain Balthazar Bratt (Trey Parker), a child star from the 1980s who seeks revenge against the people who ended his career.
Universal have, rightly or wrongly, not messed with the formula that made the first two films such smash hits. That means you get the same uniquely animated world and characters with a reasonably engaging story that doesn’t ask too much of its audience. There is one difference however, the Minions. After the success of their own film, their presence here is notably jacked up – they’re given their own side quest and that is where we run into some problems.
The sacrifice made to accommodate this extra plot is a disjointed film that switches quite jarringly between each particular story point. One minute we’re tracking unicorns with Agnes, Margot and Edith, the next we’re joining the Minions and five minutes later we’re watching Gru strut his stuff against Balthazar Bratt.
Kids will love it, there’s no doubt about it and it’s sure to bring in the big bucks for Universal, but children’s films have become so much more than just bright colours, fart jokes and fragmented story points. Take 2015’s Inside Out for example or How to Train Your Dragon 2, the very pinnacle of animation.
There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with Despicable Me 3, the voice cast are all on point, Kristen Wiig is a joy as Lucy, and the animation is slick and colourful, but the bar has been set extraordinarily high.
Nevertheless, Trey Parker’s turn as villain Balthazar Bratt is great fun and he’s a brilliant antagonist throughout. See Marvel, it can be done.
There are moments of excellence here. Mature themes about growing up creep in to genuinely sweet moments, but they’re few and far between as the film steamrolls into a fun if generic final act.
Overall, there’s no doubt that Despicable Me 3 is going to be one of the biggest hits of the year. Packed with lovely animation, a great retro soundtrack, Minions and wonderful voice acting, it’s got all the ingredients for success; I just wish it had the guts to change the formula a little.
Cue the Minion memes in 3, 2, 1…
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/01/despicable-me-3-review/
The first two films were a delightful, if uneven adventure with everybody’s favourite yellow tic-tacs getting their standalone movie that grossed over $1billion. I know, I can’t believe it either.
Now, supervillain turned doting dad Gru is back for another round of animated mayhem. But is this third outing as enjoyable as its predecessors? Or are we starting to feel franchise fatigue?
The mischievous yet hopelessly adorable Minions hope that boss Gru (Steve Carell) will return to a life of crime after the Anti-Villain League fires him. Instead, he travels to Freedonia to meet his long-lost twin brother for the very first time. The siblings soon find themselves in a bickering alliance to take down supervillain Balthazar Bratt (Trey Parker), a child star from the 1980s who seeks revenge against the people who ended his career.
Universal have, rightly or wrongly, not messed with the formula that made the first two films such smash hits. That means you get the same uniquely animated world and characters with a reasonably engaging story that doesn’t ask too much of its audience. There is one difference however, the Minions. After the success of their own film, their presence here is notably jacked up – they’re given their own side quest and that is where we run into some problems.
The sacrifice made to accommodate this extra plot is a disjointed film that switches quite jarringly between each particular story point. One minute we’re tracking unicorns with Agnes, Margot and Edith, the next we’re joining the Minions and five minutes later we’re watching Gru strut his stuff against Balthazar Bratt.
Kids will love it, there’s no doubt about it and it’s sure to bring in the big bucks for Universal, but children’s films have become so much more than just bright colours, fart jokes and fragmented story points. Take 2015’s Inside Out for example or How to Train Your Dragon 2, the very pinnacle of animation.
There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with Despicable Me 3, the voice cast are all on point, Kristen Wiig is a joy as Lucy, and the animation is slick and colourful, but the bar has been set extraordinarily high.
Nevertheless, Trey Parker’s turn as villain Balthazar Bratt is great fun and he’s a brilliant antagonist throughout. See Marvel, it can be done.
There are moments of excellence here. Mature themes about growing up creep in to genuinely sweet moments, but they’re few and far between as the film steamrolls into a fun if generic final act.
Overall, there’s no doubt that Despicable Me 3 is going to be one of the biggest hits of the year. Packed with lovely animation, a great retro soundtrack, Minions and wonderful voice acting, it’s got all the ingredients for success; I just wish it had the guts to change the formula a little.
Cue the Minion memes in 3, 2, 1…
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/01/despicable-me-3-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beautiful Boy (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Trying to climb a slippery pole.
As John Lennon’s lyrics go:
“‘Cause it’s a long way to go,
A hard row to hoe
Yes, it’s a long way to go“
And so it proves for young Nic Sheff (Timothée Chalamet). For – based on a true story – Nic has progressively worked through the encyclopaedia of drugs until he has arrived at “C for Crystal Meth” where he is working through a recurring nightmare of addiction and attempted rehab.
What’s harder… being the victim of drugs or being the caring onlookers desperately hoping that this attempt to climb the slippery pole to recovery will be a successful one? This is reflected as a key aspect of the film, and as a parent it makes for a very hard watch. The ‘caring onlookers’ in this case are Nic’s father David (Steve Carell), his girlfriend Karen Barbour (Maura Tierney), the couple’s natural children Jasper (Christian Convery) and Daisy (Oakley Bull), and David’s ex-wife and Nic’s mother Vicki (Amy Ryan).
Flashbacks
This is only the 2nd English-language film from director Felix van Groeningen (after 2012’s ” The Broken Circle Breakdown”) and the film has its fair share of impressive directorial flourishes such that Felix might need to get added to that elusive list of “famous Belgians”! Not least among them is the use of flashbacks. The film starts with a 12 month flashback, but then throughout the story David flashes back to scenes of his boy’s childhood. Many of these reflect the regret in perhaps failing to identify ways he could have done things differently to avoid the current crisis.
While many of these flashbacks are sudden and unexpected, I didn’t find them confusing to follow although I can see how they might annoy some viewers who prefer a more ‘linear’ storytelling approach.
The turns
Above all, it is the acting performances that make this film, and the four key cast members all turn in memorable turns. It’s excruciating watching Carell’s parental anguish and then (like a blast of light) his realization of a truth he’d been avoiding for a long time. It’s Chalamet though who truly shines, delivering fully on the realization of the tortured and self-torturing Nic. Already nominated for a Golden Globe, I would have thought another Oscar nomination is assured for this.
ER’s Maura Tierney also excels in a quieter supporting role: something that generally seems to be her niche at the movies.
Part of the curriculum
This is most definitely a “Father Ted” film…. it’s a gruelling movie from beginning to end and as such it feels a lot longer than it’s 2 hour running time suggests. But it is well worth the effort. A drama that really delivers on its message: “just say no”.
It rather frustrates me that the film is a UK 15 certificate. Not that I’m criticising the BBFC here, since with graphic drug taking, a lot of choice language and one (not overly graphic) sex scene, the rating is appropriate. However this would seem to me to be required viewing by every 13 year old, since if Chalomet’s performance can’t drill the message home to not climb onto that pole in the first place, then noone can.
“‘Cause it’s a long way to go,
A hard row to hoe
Yes, it’s a long way to go“
And so it proves for young Nic Sheff (Timothée Chalamet). For – based on a true story – Nic has progressively worked through the encyclopaedia of drugs until he has arrived at “C for Crystal Meth” where he is working through a recurring nightmare of addiction and attempted rehab.
What’s harder… being the victim of drugs or being the caring onlookers desperately hoping that this attempt to climb the slippery pole to recovery will be a successful one? This is reflected as a key aspect of the film, and as a parent it makes for a very hard watch. The ‘caring onlookers’ in this case are Nic’s father David (Steve Carell), his girlfriend Karen Barbour (Maura Tierney), the couple’s natural children Jasper (Christian Convery) and Daisy (Oakley Bull), and David’s ex-wife and Nic’s mother Vicki (Amy Ryan).
Flashbacks
This is only the 2nd English-language film from director Felix van Groeningen (after 2012’s ” The Broken Circle Breakdown”) and the film has its fair share of impressive directorial flourishes such that Felix might need to get added to that elusive list of “famous Belgians”! Not least among them is the use of flashbacks. The film starts with a 12 month flashback, but then throughout the story David flashes back to scenes of his boy’s childhood. Many of these reflect the regret in perhaps failing to identify ways he could have done things differently to avoid the current crisis.
While many of these flashbacks are sudden and unexpected, I didn’t find them confusing to follow although I can see how they might annoy some viewers who prefer a more ‘linear’ storytelling approach.
The turns
Above all, it is the acting performances that make this film, and the four key cast members all turn in memorable turns. It’s excruciating watching Carell’s parental anguish and then (like a blast of light) his realization of a truth he’d been avoiding for a long time. It’s Chalamet though who truly shines, delivering fully on the realization of the tortured and self-torturing Nic. Already nominated for a Golden Globe, I would have thought another Oscar nomination is assured for this.
ER’s Maura Tierney also excels in a quieter supporting role: something that generally seems to be her niche at the movies.
Part of the curriculum
This is most definitely a “Father Ted” film…. it’s a gruelling movie from beginning to end and as such it feels a lot longer than it’s 2 hour running time suggests. But it is well worth the effort. A drama that really delivers on its message: “just say no”.
It rather frustrates me that the film is a UK 15 certificate. Not that I’m criticising the BBFC here, since with graphic drug taking, a lot of choice language and one (not overly graphic) sex scene, the rating is appropriate. However this would seem to me to be required viewing by every 13 year old, since if Chalomet’s performance can’t drill the message home to not climb onto that pole in the first place, then noone can.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Irresistible (2020) in Movies
Jun 23, 2020
Jon Stewart has been fairly quiet since his retirement from The Daily Show. In a recent interview with Howard Stern he talked about being content on a farm for rescued animals and enjoying more time with his family. He also sent to that he would be doing projects that interested him. In “Irresistible” Stewart working as both Writer and Director has crafted a funny, informative, and expansive look at the political process.
Steve Carell stars as Gary Zimmer; a senior advisor to the Clinton’s who is still smarting over the recent election particularly his insistence that the “Rust Belt” was firmly in their hands and therefore opted not to devote a significant amount of time campaigning there which in turn was a key reason for their defeat.
An online video from a small farming community in Wisconsin catches Gary’s eye as it shows a former Marine farmer named Jack Hastings (Chris Cooper) challenging the local mayor at a town hall over immigration related issues and other hot topics.
Convinced that he can bring Jack over to the Democratic Party and use him as a starting point to restore the party in Wisconsin; Gary heads to the small town to make his pitch.
He quickly finds himself out of his element as the small-town community with friendly townsfolk to watch out for one another is very different than what he is used to. Gary eventually convinces Jack to run for Mayor and his involvement soon attracts the big money from the opposing side that seem to be rattled by what appears to be an insignificant small-town campaign.
Gary soon realizes that his nemesis Faith (Rose Byrne) who is his opposite for the Republican Party.
Gary and Faith have a clear history with one another and there is clearly plenty of animosity between them as each one is determined to succeed and broke their success in the face of the other.
As the campaign unfolds viewers are given a very direct look at how the political machine works from polling, demographics, special interests, fund raising, campaigning, muckraking, and using the media.
While this is often presented in a humorous way; Stewart uses a lot of simple but direct approaches to the various topics as he did on The Daily Show as a basis for further discussion.
The film takes some unexpected twists as it unfolds and the conclusion helps underscore that all parties involved often have an angle that they’re trying to work. One of the biggest messages that I took from the film was that the amount of money poured into campaigns has become more about one side beating the other rather than addressing the issues and putting the best possible people forward to represent the population.
Stewart handles the very complicated topics of the film through humor but above all used generally likable characters on all sides. Nobody was truly evil and you could clearly see much of their motivations.
The closing credits contains an interview with a political expert who discusses Superpacs and their lack of oversight and how people with ulterior motives can generate large amounts of money by manipulating the system completely within the law.
From a strong cast and entertaining story. Stewart has crafted a very solid and enjoyable film that will make you think.
Steve Carell stars as Gary Zimmer; a senior advisor to the Clinton’s who is still smarting over the recent election particularly his insistence that the “Rust Belt” was firmly in their hands and therefore opted not to devote a significant amount of time campaigning there which in turn was a key reason for their defeat.
An online video from a small farming community in Wisconsin catches Gary’s eye as it shows a former Marine farmer named Jack Hastings (Chris Cooper) challenging the local mayor at a town hall over immigration related issues and other hot topics.
Convinced that he can bring Jack over to the Democratic Party and use him as a starting point to restore the party in Wisconsin; Gary heads to the small town to make his pitch.
He quickly finds himself out of his element as the small-town community with friendly townsfolk to watch out for one another is very different than what he is used to. Gary eventually convinces Jack to run for Mayor and his involvement soon attracts the big money from the opposing side that seem to be rattled by what appears to be an insignificant small-town campaign.
Gary soon realizes that his nemesis Faith (Rose Byrne) who is his opposite for the Republican Party.
Gary and Faith have a clear history with one another and there is clearly plenty of animosity between them as each one is determined to succeed and broke their success in the face of the other.
As the campaign unfolds viewers are given a very direct look at how the political machine works from polling, demographics, special interests, fund raising, campaigning, muckraking, and using the media.
While this is often presented in a humorous way; Stewart uses a lot of simple but direct approaches to the various topics as he did on The Daily Show as a basis for further discussion.
The film takes some unexpected twists as it unfolds and the conclusion helps underscore that all parties involved often have an angle that they’re trying to work. One of the biggest messages that I took from the film was that the amount of money poured into campaigns has become more about one side beating the other rather than addressing the issues and putting the best possible people forward to represent the population.
Stewart handles the very complicated topics of the film through humor but above all used generally likable characters on all sides. Nobody was truly evil and you could clearly see much of their motivations.
The closing credits contains an interview with a political expert who discusses Superpacs and their lack of oversight and how people with ulterior motives can generate large amounts of money by manipulating the system completely within the law.
From a strong cast and entertaining story. Stewart has crafted a very solid and enjoyable film that will make you think.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
How many times have you seen this premise played out in film or other forms of entertainment: The world is going to end and there’s one last ditch plan or effort to save it (It inevitably succeeds, of course!); alternatively, the world has ended already and we’re left with post-apocalyptic society picking up the pieces. The premise is everywhere; the fascination with the end of days has been evident throughout our popular culture for decades. Yet, the thing about these two premises is that it avoids a (quite large) important question about the nature of the situation. What if our last ditch effort doesn’t succeed? What if there is no post-apocalyptic setting giving us hope for a re-built future. “Seeking a Friend for the End of the World”, a brand new film directed and written by Lorene Scafaria (“Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist”) attempts to focus on that gap often glossed over by apocalyptic fiction. It assumes there is no hope, there is a conclusion, and how do we deal with that?
It’s a comedy drama that pokes fun of the absurdity of a monotonous society coping with the conclusion of all civilization, while interweaving a touching romance between two people with broken pasts and deep regrets. Yet, it is a movie with some notable flaws, mainly in how it focuses its attention.
The premise is fairly simple, and rightly so. There is a large asteroid named “Matilda” barreling towards Earth and its impact will wipe out all life on our beloved planet. The film starts with the announcement that the last chance for Earth’s survival, a space mission to destroy the asteroid, has failed due to a fire on board the vessel. With only three weeks left to live, insurance salesman Dodge Peterson (Steve Carell) must decide how to spend the rest of his life. He decides to chase down an old highschool sweetheart and is accompanied by his neighbor, Penny (Keira Knightley) who wishes to return home to see her family one last time. They meet several characters in their roadtrip journey through pre-apocalyptica, including characters played by Rob Corddry and Martin Sheen.
The simple premise seems familiar due to its subject matter (C’mon, it’s 2012. I’m surprised there hasn’t been even more apocalypse movies flooding the theaters). Yet, strangely it feels fresh simply in how it handles itself. As said, most movies focus on the last daring mission to save mankind from certain destruction, or assumes that certain destruction really isn’t the end. People like to see hope, they don’t want to be confined by fate. This movie takes a different approach. Right off the bat it basically tells you there is zero hope, zero chance of getting out of this mess. Now what do you do? This particular premise lets comedy shine for the first two acts of the movie. There are subtle jokes, like the absurdity of naming a rock about to destroy all of mankind “Matilda”.
There are more traditional joke set-ups, favoring quick joke-punchline material that is mostly laugh-out-loud funny. And there is a fair amount of dark humor, simple funniness in the absurdity of how people treat the end of days. People mowing their lawns, still cleaning houses, even cops who continue to pull people over all poke fun of how people cannot let go of even the most monotonous of tasks that define their lift – regardless of how pointless they are due to the situation. Or the people who just let go and want to spend their last days without care, throwing themselves into orgies, drugs or riots. However, the tone of the drama limits the humor of the movie, favoring those kinds of moderate laughs over hysterical or hilarious moments. That’s the underlying issue of the film: that it feels like the humor is constrained due to fear of it undermining its drama.
Those who expect a comedy movie will only get two-thirds of one. And those who expect a drama movie will get mostly one. By no means does it fail at comedy or drama, but it just does not strike that delicate balance to be both in the same setting. The last act of the movie almost completely drops the comedy in favor of a dramatic and romantic conclusion. It’s not a huge fault, because the writing, and well-paced relationship development between the two main protagonists (Dodge and Penny), means that their inevitable romance seems natural, honest, and believable. The comedy is really only around in the first two thirds of the movie to try and keep your attention away from the obvious conclusion to their story – the fact that they end up together (and, perhaps, another conclusion entirely). So, when it does eventually happen, even though it was obvious from the start that it would, it does feel very endearing. The natural chemistry between Steve Carell and Keira Knightley is quite good, so buying their romance is not difficult in the slightest.
Yet, even still, that underlying issue keeps coming back. The fact that the comedy feels like a tool to facilitate a good dramatic ending ,instead of natural focus of the movie, undermines the experience for those who want to get some laughs. If there was a more natural balance between the romantic elements and comedy elements throughout the whole movie and not just the first two thirds, it could bring forth much more powerful comedy and/or drama. That way those who desire comedy or romance would be delighted to get a good deal of both intertwined.
I commend the film for how it handles the subject matter of inevitability. Even though it pokes fun at absurdity and really garners good laughs, it always has this underlying sense of regret, sadness and dread. You’re always reminded in the back of your mind that the world is going to end, but it does a good enough job pulling you into the characters’ last struggle to piece together their lives after decades of failure and regret that you end up really wanting to see them pull through somehow. Its last act is especially poignant, and definitely emotionally strong. Even though the themes of throwing away your past in favor of a happier future (despite it being such a short future) are not well concealed, they still end up being particularly strong. A film that can really make you appreciate what you have outside the film and the limited time you have left to enjoy it has to be commended for making you think.
“Seeking a Friend for the End of the World” is a fairly powerful romance drama that focuses on how people deal with loss, regret and the prospect of inevitable fate. More importantly, though, is that it focuses on how people can build something profoundly beautiful even in the last moments of their lives – regardless of their pasts or (lack) of future prospects. It has comedy in the movie, but it never really shines nor intertwines with the drama. They almost feel like two separate elements that struggle to mix together. Yet, the comedy is mostly laugh-out-loud funny and the drama is quite poignant and endearing. It definitely had the potential to make us laugh to tears or even bring us to tears through drama, but instead it settles for simply making us laugh and reflect.
It’s a comedy drama that pokes fun of the absurdity of a monotonous society coping with the conclusion of all civilization, while interweaving a touching romance between two people with broken pasts and deep regrets. Yet, it is a movie with some notable flaws, mainly in how it focuses its attention.
The premise is fairly simple, and rightly so. There is a large asteroid named “Matilda” barreling towards Earth and its impact will wipe out all life on our beloved planet. The film starts with the announcement that the last chance for Earth’s survival, a space mission to destroy the asteroid, has failed due to a fire on board the vessel. With only three weeks left to live, insurance salesman Dodge Peterson (Steve Carell) must decide how to spend the rest of his life. He decides to chase down an old highschool sweetheart and is accompanied by his neighbor, Penny (Keira Knightley) who wishes to return home to see her family one last time. They meet several characters in their roadtrip journey through pre-apocalyptica, including characters played by Rob Corddry and Martin Sheen.
The simple premise seems familiar due to its subject matter (C’mon, it’s 2012. I’m surprised there hasn’t been even more apocalypse movies flooding the theaters). Yet, strangely it feels fresh simply in how it handles itself. As said, most movies focus on the last daring mission to save mankind from certain destruction, or assumes that certain destruction really isn’t the end. People like to see hope, they don’t want to be confined by fate. This movie takes a different approach. Right off the bat it basically tells you there is zero hope, zero chance of getting out of this mess. Now what do you do? This particular premise lets comedy shine for the first two acts of the movie. There are subtle jokes, like the absurdity of naming a rock about to destroy all of mankind “Matilda”.
There are more traditional joke set-ups, favoring quick joke-punchline material that is mostly laugh-out-loud funny. And there is a fair amount of dark humor, simple funniness in the absurdity of how people treat the end of days. People mowing their lawns, still cleaning houses, even cops who continue to pull people over all poke fun of how people cannot let go of even the most monotonous of tasks that define their lift – regardless of how pointless they are due to the situation. Or the people who just let go and want to spend their last days without care, throwing themselves into orgies, drugs or riots. However, the tone of the drama limits the humor of the movie, favoring those kinds of moderate laughs over hysterical or hilarious moments. That’s the underlying issue of the film: that it feels like the humor is constrained due to fear of it undermining its drama.
Those who expect a comedy movie will only get two-thirds of one. And those who expect a drama movie will get mostly one. By no means does it fail at comedy or drama, but it just does not strike that delicate balance to be both in the same setting. The last act of the movie almost completely drops the comedy in favor of a dramatic and romantic conclusion. It’s not a huge fault, because the writing, and well-paced relationship development between the two main protagonists (Dodge and Penny), means that their inevitable romance seems natural, honest, and believable. The comedy is really only around in the first two thirds of the movie to try and keep your attention away from the obvious conclusion to their story – the fact that they end up together (and, perhaps, another conclusion entirely). So, when it does eventually happen, even though it was obvious from the start that it would, it does feel very endearing. The natural chemistry between Steve Carell and Keira Knightley is quite good, so buying their romance is not difficult in the slightest.
Yet, even still, that underlying issue keeps coming back. The fact that the comedy feels like a tool to facilitate a good dramatic ending ,instead of natural focus of the movie, undermines the experience for those who want to get some laughs. If there was a more natural balance between the romantic elements and comedy elements throughout the whole movie and not just the first two thirds, it could bring forth much more powerful comedy and/or drama. That way those who desire comedy or romance would be delighted to get a good deal of both intertwined.
I commend the film for how it handles the subject matter of inevitability. Even though it pokes fun at absurdity and really garners good laughs, it always has this underlying sense of regret, sadness and dread. You’re always reminded in the back of your mind that the world is going to end, but it does a good enough job pulling you into the characters’ last struggle to piece together their lives after decades of failure and regret that you end up really wanting to see them pull through somehow. Its last act is especially poignant, and definitely emotionally strong. Even though the themes of throwing away your past in favor of a happier future (despite it being such a short future) are not well concealed, they still end up being particularly strong. A film that can really make you appreciate what you have outside the film and the limited time you have left to enjoy it has to be commended for making you think.
“Seeking a Friend for the End of the World” is a fairly powerful romance drama that focuses on how people deal with loss, regret and the prospect of inevitable fate. More importantly, though, is that it focuses on how people can build something profoundly beautiful even in the last moments of their lives – regardless of their pasts or (lack) of future prospects. It has comedy in the movie, but it never really shines nor intertwines with the drama. They almost feel like two separate elements that struggle to mix together. Yet, the comedy is mostly laugh-out-loud funny and the drama is quite poignant and endearing. It definitely had the potential to make us laugh to tears or even bring us to tears through drama, but instead it settles for simply making us laugh and reflect.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Vice (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A patronising mess of a film
If you want to learn how to completely and utterly fail at satire, look no further than Adam McKay’s Vice. It honestly does pain me to say this was one of the worst experiences I’ve ever had in the cinema. As a matter of fact, I was seconds away from walking out at one point. But, like any good critic, I stayed in my seat. I hoped and prayed it would get better… but it didn’t. If anything, it snowballed.
Vice is a ‘comedy’ (I’ve put this in quotation marks because there’s nothing funny about it) biopic about former American Vice President, Dick Cheney. The film attempts to give us further insight into his life, and how he got away with all the horrible things he did whilst in office. On paper, it actually sounds pretty appealing, especially for someone like me who knows very little about the man. On screen, it is an entirely different experience. 24 hours later, I’m still shocked by how appalling it was.
So, what has Vice done to receive such a scathing review from me? First and foremost, the dialogue is horrendously condescending and talks to the audience like they’re complete idiots. I have never seen such a patronising and immature biopic in my entire life. I’m not sure what’s more obnoxious: Cheney himself or the tone of the film. Maybe they’re on par with each other. I was barely half an hour into this when I was already starting to feel angry about the way they addressed things. You can give your audience context without talking down to them. The film did everything it could to seem edgy and like it was giving the audience the finger, but I just sat there cringing the whole time. It failed.
Secondly, the narrative is all over the place. I’m perfectly fine with non-linear stories, provided they actually make sense. Vice doesn’t know whether it’s coming or going, and changes between the past and future constantly. The pacing is an absolute shambles and makes the film feel longer than it actually is. It runs at just over 2 hours, but feels so much longer than that. I have never wanted a film to end so badly. In fact, I was ready to get up and leave when they decided to throw in a fake ending in an attempt to be funny. Yes, that actually happens. No, I didn’t laugh.
Don’t even get me started on the way it sloppily splices random pictures and video clips throughout the film, making me wonder who on earth nominated this for Best Editing. Are they okay? Without spoiling this too much, Vice’s editing is incredibly jarring and decides to patronise the audience even further by giving visual aids to the idioms that are described by the narrator. At one point it even tries to condescendingly explain Guantanamo Bay, which just caused me to facepalm. What were you thinking guys?
Having said all of this, does the film have some redeeming features? Sure. The quality of the acting is good, I enjoyed Christian Bale as Cheney and Amy Adams as his equally awful wife, Lynne. I also enjoyed Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld and Sam Rockwell as George W Bush. It is a shame to waste such great talent on a script as weak as this one. If someone had written this better, maybe I would’ve enjoyed it a lot more. Sadly, I’m stuck with this one. I’m baffled by how anyone can consider this to be a well written script. If anyone wants to enlighten me, by all means, try.
If I never have to watch Vice again, I’ll be fine with that. I feel completely let down by McKay, and this hurts more considering I like some of his other films such as Anchorman and Step Brothers. He’s better than this, and I hope he can redeem himself with whatever he creates next.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/03/a-patronising-mess-of-a-film-my-review-of-vice/
Vice is a ‘comedy’ (I’ve put this in quotation marks because there’s nothing funny about it) biopic about former American Vice President, Dick Cheney. The film attempts to give us further insight into his life, and how he got away with all the horrible things he did whilst in office. On paper, it actually sounds pretty appealing, especially for someone like me who knows very little about the man. On screen, it is an entirely different experience. 24 hours later, I’m still shocked by how appalling it was.
So, what has Vice done to receive such a scathing review from me? First and foremost, the dialogue is horrendously condescending and talks to the audience like they’re complete idiots. I have never seen such a patronising and immature biopic in my entire life. I’m not sure what’s more obnoxious: Cheney himself or the tone of the film. Maybe they’re on par with each other. I was barely half an hour into this when I was already starting to feel angry about the way they addressed things. You can give your audience context without talking down to them. The film did everything it could to seem edgy and like it was giving the audience the finger, but I just sat there cringing the whole time. It failed.
Secondly, the narrative is all over the place. I’m perfectly fine with non-linear stories, provided they actually make sense. Vice doesn’t know whether it’s coming or going, and changes between the past and future constantly. The pacing is an absolute shambles and makes the film feel longer than it actually is. It runs at just over 2 hours, but feels so much longer than that. I have never wanted a film to end so badly. In fact, I was ready to get up and leave when they decided to throw in a fake ending in an attempt to be funny. Yes, that actually happens. No, I didn’t laugh.
Don’t even get me started on the way it sloppily splices random pictures and video clips throughout the film, making me wonder who on earth nominated this for Best Editing. Are they okay? Without spoiling this too much, Vice’s editing is incredibly jarring and decides to patronise the audience even further by giving visual aids to the idioms that are described by the narrator. At one point it even tries to condescendingly explain Guantanamo Bay, which just caused me to facepalm. What were you thinking guys?
Having said all of this, does the film have some redeeming features? Sure. The quality of the acting is good, I enjoyed Christian Bale as Cheney and Amy Adams as his equally awful wife, Lynne. I also enjoyed Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld and Sam Rockwell as George W Bush. It is a shame to waste such great talent on a script as weak as this one. If someone had written this better, maybe I would’ve enjoyed it a lot more. Sadly, I’m stuck with this one. I’m baffled by how anyone can consider this to be a well written script. If anyone wants to enlighten me, by all means, try.
If I never have to watch Vice again, I’ll be fine with that. I feel completely let down by McKay, and this hurts more considering I like some of his other films such as Anchorman and Step Brothers. He’s better than this, and I hope he can redeem himself with whatever he creates next.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/03/a-patronising-mess-of-a-film-my-review-of-vice/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Bewitched (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Turning a classic television series into a feature film can be a risky proposition. While the built in audience of Baby Boomers and new fans of a show gained through reruns make remakes a potentially lucrative venture, the task of recasting classic characters and modernizing the story to today’s audiences is rife with hazards.
For example, for every remake that succeeds, such as The Adams Family, Starsky and Hutch, and The Brady Bunch, there are countless others that fail, like The Wild Wild West, Car 54 Where Are You and I-Spy.
Sadly the new film version of Bewitched falls into the latter category. It is so bad it begs the question as to why such talents like Nicole Kidman, Michael Caine, and Will Ferrell signed on.
The story centers on Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), a young woman who is anxious to set off on her own and leave the family structure behind her. While this is not so uncommon for most people, Isabel is a witch and her decision to live as a mortal without her powers is of great consternation to her father (Michael Caine).
Isabel is convinced she can find a man, and can live in happiness and love with a mortal. She wants no part of the shallow and wandering eye that makes up their lifestyle. Convinced his daughter will never be able to live without her powers, her father chides her for her frequent and casual use of powers to do everything from find and furnish her home to paying for everyday needs.
At roughly the same time, fading actor Jack Wyatt is about to sign up to play the male lead in a new television version of the classic Bewitched television series. With the gigantic failure of his recent film, Jack is in need of a hit. Not wanting to take any attention away from his star turn, Jack insists that the producers cast a complete unknown in the role of Samantha. He does not want anyone infringing upon his spotlight.
A chance encounter with Isabel leads to her being cast by Jack in the new series. Isabel is taken by Jack and when she learns the role is that of a witch, she signs aboard despite some reservations.
Naturally Jack and Isabel will hit it off, and yes there will be issues, particularly when Jack’s shallow nature becomes clear to Isabel, and this is to say nothing of Isabel’s true identity which in and of itself is an issue.
What starts as a good premise with a solid cast quickly dissolves into a disjointed mess thanks to a paper thin plot that is rife with plot holes, non-sequitors, and unresolved moments. One such example is the character of Iris Smythson (Shirley Mac Laine), who plays Endora on the show. It is at first hinted at that she too is a witch and then made obvious. However there is no conclusion to this revelation. We see that she has a power and uses it, but we never really get the why she is there, how she chose to live as she does, and how her relationship with Isabel’s father is going to be altered by this.
Another problem the show has is that Ferell is reduced to running around, over-acting to get laughs. The situations go on way to long, and things that are at first amusing, become tedious after a while. One such scene has Ferell’s character appearing nude on a live television appearance. It is something that is used to generate laughs but there is no setup to the scene and it plays out as a desperate attempt to get laughs.
The only thing that works is the charm of Kidman who, as the quirky Isabel, is delightful, as is the supporting work of Caine and Steve Carell as Uncle Arthur. Sadly they are the only good things in a film that became so bad that many in the audience at my press screener were voicing their disdain when we left the film. Perhaps Samantha can twitch her nose and make this one vanish, as there is precious little to redeem it.
For example, for every remake that succeeds, such as The Adams Family, Starsky and Hutch, and The Brady Bunch, there are countless others that fail, like The Wild Wild West, Car 54 Where Are You and I-Spy.
Sadly the new film version of Bewitched falls into the latter category. It is so bad it begs the question as to why such talents like Nicole Kidman, Michael Caine, and Will Ferrell signed on.
The story centers on Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), a young woman who is anxious to set off on her own and leave the family structure behind her. While this is not so uncommon for most people, Isabel is a witch and her decision to live as a mortal without her powers is of great consternation to her father (Michael Caine).
Isabel is convinced she can find a man, and can live in happiness and love with a mortal. She wants no part of the shallow and wandering eye that makes up their lifestyle. Convinced his daughter will never be able to live without her powers, her father chides her for her frequent and casual use of powers to do everything from find and furnish her home to paying for everyday needs.
At roughly the same time, fading actor Jack Wyatt is about to sign up to play the male lead in a new television version of the classic Bewitched television series. With the gigantic failure of his recent film, Jack is in need of a hit. Not wanting to take any attention away from his star turn, Jack insists that the producers cast a complete unknown in the role of Samantha. He does not want anyone infringing upon his spotlight.
A chance encounter with Isabel leads to her being cast by Jack in the new series. Isabel is taken by Jack and when she learns the role is that of a witch, she signs aboard despite some reservations.
Naturally Jack and Isabel will hit it off, and yes there will be issues, particularly when Jack’s shallow nature becomes clear to Isabel, and this is to say nothing of Isabel’s true identity which in and of itself is an issue.
What starts as a good premise with a solid cast quickly dissolves into a disjointed mess thanks to a paper thin plot that is rife with plot holes, non-sequitors, and unresolved moments. One such example is the character of Iris Smythson (Shirley Mac Laine), who plays Endora on the show. It is at first hinted at that she too is a witch and then made obvious. However there is no conclusion to this revelation. We see that she has a power and uses it, but we never really get the why she is there, how she chose to live as she does, and how her relationship with Isabel’s father is going to be altered by this.
Another problem the show has is that Ferell is reduced to running around, over-acting to get laughs. The situations go on way to long, and things that are at first amusing, become tedious after a while. One such scene has Ferell’s character appearing nude on a live television appearance. It is something that is used to generate laughs but there is no setup to the scene and it plays out as a desperate attempt to get laughs.
The only thing that works is the charm of Kidman who, as the quirky Isabel, is delightful, as is the supporting work of Caine and Steve Carell as Uncle Arthur. Sadly they are the only good things in a film that became so bad that many in the audience at my press screener were voicing their disdain when we left the film. Perhaps Samantha can twitch her nose and make this one vanish, as there is precious little to redeem it.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Anchorman - The Legend Of Ron Burgundy (2004) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
How in the world do you review a film like Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy? The film is meant to be as ridiculous as possible with outrageous performances and a paper thin storyline; half of its charm is its overuse of improvisation. You either found its absurd nature hilarious and consider it one of the funniest films ever (and completely ignore the horrid sequel) or hate it for being a nonsensical comedy filled with a cast of immature people who can’t hold a straight face for a single take. It’s honestly difficult to argue either perspective, but the 20-year-old version of this critic who saw this film and adored it would drop dead if he found out that it doesn’t hold up as well nearly 15 years later.
It’s 1974 and on the local San Diego news station KVWN channel 4 newscaster Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is king since channel 4 is always number one in the ratings. His news team consists of sports newscaster Champ Kind (David Koechner), investigative news reporter Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), and weatherman Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). Up until this point, only men were allowed to read the news but a new female co-anchor named Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) is hired by channel 4 and has bigger plans. Veronica is ambitious, has a ton of experience, and envisions herself as one day becoming a lead network anchor. Tensions rise and feuds flare up, but times are changing and it’s something everyone, including Ron Burgundy, is going to have to deal with.
Anchorman is a tricky comedy because it throws all of its success into this random formula. There is a plot, but it takes a backseat to the memorable and hysterical one-liners from the film. These one-liners are phrases that you’ll be saying for years to come as a few will likely become household favorites if you or your family has any sort of taste whatsoever. With the absolute blessing of owning so many cats, a common phrase from Anchorman that gets repeated around here on a regular basis is, “You will eat that cat poop!” With a comedy this spontaneous, it’s difficult to comment on aspects such as the story since it shouldn’t be taken as seriously as a film where the story actually matters. Anchorman isn’t trying to win any awards. This is a film that is only trying to make its audience laugh and if it does that then it has to be successful in some sort of capacity. The cast absolutely embodies these characters to a fairly flawless extent. Being so absorbed in these roles makes the absurdity more believable and slightly easier to swallow.
Before Will Ferrell became unbearable, the holy trinity of Will Ferrell comedies were Step Brothers, Anchorman, and Talladega Nights; in that order (unless his cameo in Wedding Crashers counts). This was the early and late 2000s before Farrell’s on-screen antics had grown stale. Most of Farrell’s films follow the same generic formula; a nonexistent plot followed by a series of aimless one-liners and spitfire jokes that come out of nowhere. Ferrell’s career is well past the redundant stage as his more serious roles show more promise these days than his exasperating comedies. That formula was still working with Anchorman and it seems to have worked for many other who saw it as the film garnered a cult status over time.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy isn’t going to be for everyone and it’s totally understandable if you or someone you know downright hates the film. It is absolutely moronic in its execution, but for those who love it that is why it’s as funny as it is. There isn’t a riveting story, impressive character development, or a steady buildup towards anything worthwhile (unless Jack Black dropkicking a fake dog off of an overpass counts as a proper climax). Anchorman has the attention span of a Family Guy cutaway gag. If you enjoy Family Guy, then Anchorman is probably one of your favorite movies.
This is like getting together with a bunch of friends and laughing at stupid stuff because you’re loaded on sugar, but Anchorman stretches out that feeling for an hour and a half; it’s a 90-minute sugar rush with no breaks. It’s like snorting Pixie Stix and laughing like an idiot for an hour straight or chugging a two-liter Coke and inhaling seven packets of Pop Rocks and laughing at your stomach not exploding. You don’t watch Anchorman to ponder your life choices or be amazed at technical achievements in filmmaking. This is a paper thin comedy that only wants to make you laugh and forget about how hard it is to make adult decisions in the overly intimidating modern world for a short hour and a half time period. If Anchorman can accomplish all of that and you quote it like a giggling idiot, then the two of us have something in common and Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy should be considered as a masterwork in hilarious idiocy.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is currently available to rent via Amazon Video, Youtube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and through iTunes for $3.99. The Unrated DVD is available as an add-on item through Amazon for $3.99, multi-format Blu-ray for $6.98, and the unrated Rich Mahogany Blu-ray for $5.99. It’s also available on DVD ($2.45) and Blu-ray ($3.65) through eBay with free shipping.
It’s 1974 and on the local San Diego news station KVWN channel 4 newscaster Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) is king since channel 4 is always number one in the ratings. His news team consists of sports newscaster Champ Kind (David Koechner), investigative news reporter Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), and weatherman Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). Up until this point, only men were allowed to read the news but a new female co-anchor named Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) is hired by channel 4 and has bigger plans. Veronica is ambitious, has a ton of experience, and envisions herself as one day becoming a lead network anchor. Tensions rise and feuds flare up, but times are changing and it’s something everyone, including Ron Burgundy, is going to have to deal with.
Anchorman is a tricky comedy because it throws all of its success into this random formula. There is a plot, but it takes a backseat to the memorable and hysterical one-liners from the film. These one-liners are phrases that you’ll be saying for years to come as a few will likely become household favorites if you or your family has any sort of taste whatsoever. With the absolute blessing of owning so many cats, a common phrase from Anchorman that gets repeated around here on a regular basis is, “You will eat that cat poop!” With a comedy this spontaneous, it’s difficult to comment on aspects such as the story since it shouldn’t be taken as seriously as a film where the story actually matters. Anchorman isn’t trying to win any awards. This is a film that is only trying to make its audience laugh and if it does that then it has to be successful in some sort of capacity. The cast absolutely embodies these characters to a fairly flawless extent. Being so absorbed in these roles makes the absurdity more believable and slightly easier to swallow.
Before Will Ferrell became unbearable, the holy trinity of Will Ferrell comedies were Step Brothers, Anchorman, and Talladega Nights; in that order (unless his cameo in Wedding Crashers counts). This was the early and late 2000s before Farrell’s on-screen antics had grown stale. Most of Farrell’s films follow the same generic formula; a nonexistent plot followed by a series of aimless one-liners and spitfire jokes that come out of nowhere. Ferrell’s career is well past the redundant stage as his more serious roles show more promise these days than his exasperating comedies. That formula was still working with Anchorman and it seems to have worked for many other who saw it as the film garnered a cult status over time.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy isn’t going to be for everyone and it’s totally understandable if you or someone you know downright hates the film. It is absolutely moronic in its execution, but for those who love it that is why it’s as funny as it is. There isn’t a riveting story, impressive character development, or a steady buildup towards anything worthwhile (unless Jack Black dropkicking a fake dog off of an overpass counts as a proper climax). Anchorman has the attention span of a Family Guy cutaway gag. If you enjoy Family Guy, then Anchorman is probably one of your favorite movies.
This is like getting together with a bunch of friends and laughing at stupid stuff because you’re loaded on sugar, but Anchorman stretches out that feeling for an hour and a half; it’s a 90-minute sugar rush with no breaks. It’s like snorting Pixie Stix and laughing like an idiot for an hour straight or chugging a two-liter Coke and inhaling seven packets of Pop Rocks and laughing at your stomach not exploding. You don’t watch Anchorman to ponder your life choices or be amazed at technical achievements in filmmaking. This is a paper thin comedy that only wants to make you laugh and forget about how hard it is to make adult decisions in the overly intimidating modern world for a short hour and a half time period. If Anchorman can accomplish all of that and you quote it like a giggling idiot, then the two of us have something in common and Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy should be considered as a masterwork in hilarious idiocy.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is currently available to rent via Amazon Video, Youtube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and through iTunes for $3.99. The Unrated DVD is available as an add-on item through Amazon for $3.99, multi-format Blu-ray for $6.98, and the unrated Rich Mahogany Blu-ray for $5.99. It’s also available on DVD ($2.45) and Blu-ray ($3.65) through eBay with free shipping.
