Looking for a specific film review? CLICK BELOW

0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z / Trailers / DVD Store


August 18, 2010
Wedding Crashers (2005)
Should I see it?
No.


Short Review: Remember back in the old days when comedies were funny because they contained things like jokes and gags instead of just awkward sexual references and crude language masquerading as humor? Man, those were good times.


This is pitched as a risque sex comedy. Two confirmed bachelors crash weddings to bed the bridesmaids and other female attendees. The obvious point here is the deliver a bawdy comedy. With the exception of three scenes, this film doesn’t deliver on this central selling point. Let’s be clear, while it may appear that I’m complaining this film wasn’t filthy enough, I am not…well, I am - but I’m not. I would prefer that none of the film was dirty. Truth be told, I'd prefer the movie wasn't made at all. The last thing this fledgling culture needs is another dim-eyed sex comedy. That said, this is indeed a sex comedy and the point of the production is ribald humor and it simply doesn't deliver on that front.

The central issue with this comedy is that it is just not funny. The humor is not nurtured throughout the film. The jokes are transitory. Stupid one-liners and inorganic situations abound and the heart of comedy - character is ignored. This is a shame since the premise of the film and the basic plot could have produced a crass but solid comedy.

We are offered quick sketches of the characters at their introduction and then expect to fill in the rest ourselves. None of the characters manage any real change or development and this is the fatal flaw to the whole movie. Wilson’s character isn’t as mean as he should be, Christopher Walkin’s character isn’t as threatening as he could be, the insane sister isn’t crazy enough. Each of the characters is given traits but no personality. The crazy sister Gloria (Isla Fisher) is denounced by the film as being crazy, but acts more spoiled than anything else. She performs some antisocial sexual acts but her insanity is only present when it suits the plot. This is a good example of my main complaint with the film. The characters are not allowed to the time and space to flourish and so we are left with unfulfilled areas where a good deal of humor could be mined.

This lack of internal movement in the characters is what makes scenes with John (Owen Wilson) and his love interest Claire (Rachel McAdams) come across as staged and wanting. The two are supposedly falling in love but the script offer no reason why they would. Other than a cruel fiancee, played by Bradley Cooper, there is literally no explanation why Claire would overturn her life for a man she literally just met. Instead of carefully constructed character work, we are treated to seemingly endless montage sequences showing John and Claire falling in love and later missing one another. These sequences are there because it gives the illusion of content. It’s the cinematic equlivant of someone telling a story and stuttering out “Well, anyway, they fall in love. As I was saying…”

Like a majority of the movies made by Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Ben Stiller, Will Ferrell, Steve Carell, Jack Black and the other comedic actors of this generation, this is a strong concept ruined by spotty execution. It seems that we have lost the ability to enjoy well-written and well executed comedies. We have gone from Blazing Saddles, The Jerk, the Monty Python films and Airplane! to yawning, common denominator crud such as this. When you go from Mel Brooks and Steve Martin to Ben Stiller and Vince Vaughn, your culture is in trouble. The bottom line is that American comedy is stagnant.


Related reviews:
Owen Wilson movies
Cars (2006)
Shanghai Noon (2000)


Other Critic's Reviews:

Film Critics United
eFilmCritic



Click here to buy your copy of Scott Nehring Good News Film Reviews
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens


Labels: , , ,



Share






February 14, 2009
Movie Trailer: Pulp Fiction
Tarantino makes amoral, flashy but hollow flicks but they sure do make for great trailers. This ad gives the full vibe of the movie and certainly promises what it delivers - a stylized, sharp-edge movie. Too bad the actual product is critically flawed. It is the epitome of style over substance and is best viewed within the confines of a few minutes like we have below.






Screenwriter: Quentin Tarantino (Kill Bill: Vol. 1) and Roger Avery (Beowulf)
Director: Quentin Tarantino (Reservoir Dogs)
Actors: John Travolta (The General's Daughter), Samuel L. Jackson (Snakes on a Plane), Uma Thurman (Paycheck), Harvey Kietel (The Piano), Bruce Willis (Hostage), Ving Rhames (Dawn of the Dead), Eric Stoltz (Anaconda), Tim Roth (The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover), Amanda Plummer (Red) and Christopher Walkin (Wedding Crashers)

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,



Share






February 2, 2009
Man on Fire (2004)
Should I see it?
No.



Tony Scott has always been all about style over substance. He is very adept at giving audiences visually arresting puffs of nothingness. In the case of this film, Scott opens with a very strong beginning and maintains the tension for a while but then descends into haphazard action film nonsense. Denzel Washington gives a dominating performance as Creasy, an alcoholic former assassin who is haunted by his past. Creasy is given the simple job of looking over the daughter of an industrialist in Mexico City. When the girl, Pita (Dakota Fanning) is kidnapped, Creasy goes on the hunt, leaving what appears to be half of the population of Mexico City in his wake.

Washington has plenty of meat to dig his teeth into with this role and be pulls out a very good performance. Even though the script leaves him stranded half way through, Washington still manages to find enough in his role to keep the production afloat. The problem with the production, and the reason it ultimately fails, is because the story shifts gears too broadly and we move from a well paced thriller to hurried shoot-em-up/revenge flick. The groundwork laid down in the first half isn’t comfortably resolved in the second and this gives the film a half-finished quality.

This by no means is Tony Scott’s worst film, he has plenty of titles vying for that position, but it isn’t one he should be clasping his lapels over either. This is a missed opportunity and little else. If you’re a big fan of Denzel Washington, it may be worth your while to see his performance, but you really have to like the guy.


Related Reviews:
American Gangster (2007)
Out of Time (2004)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Flick Fliosopher
Film Jerk

Labels: , , , ,



Share






September 23, 2008
Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead (1995)
Should I see it?
No.


A stylized bore. One of a number of Tarantino gangster-chic derivatives. A bunch of small time crooks find themselves on a hit list after botching a job. This is little more than an flimsy excuse for screenwriter Scott Rosenberg (Gone in Sixty Seconds) to display a gaggle of two-dimensional thugs (there's the family guy, the crazy guy, the old guy, etc.) getting whacked. Its Reservoir Dogs without the clever dialog and more sets. Other than a characteristically goofy but strangely interesting performance by Christopher Walken as a disabled crime boss, the movie really doesn't have too much going for it.


Related Reviews:
Christopher Walken Movies
The Deer Hunter (1978)
Suicide Kings (1997)



Other Critic's Reviews:
Rolling Stone
The Washington Post

Labels: , , , , , ,



Share