Posts Tagged ‘comedy’

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448157/

Dir. Peter Berg

Welcome to what is essentially a fevered hallucination in which Will Smith repeatedly farts in the face of Superman, giggling like a child each time.

This is the story of an unpopular, drunken, amnesiac, hobo superhero who undergoes a public relations campaign to improve his image and, in turn, discovers his origins. It’s horrible. Every ounce of potential in the concept is neatly destroyed by a hamfisted script, poor casting and weak direction.

The greatest flaw of the film is the storyline. The story has a traditional three-act structure that follows the arc of Hancock’s improvement and rise in popularity as hero and the discovery of his origin. As an overview, it is fine, but in practice the details of each of these plotlines are awful. Hancock’s rise in popularity is swift, easy and basically just there for a series of mediocre gags which use none of the potential of the superhero concept. It could have been a proper character journey, with comedic elements, but it’s just a flat set of jokes with no development. It also completely negates the intention of one of the other main characters, Ray, who is trying to start a charity and works as Hancock’s PR manager. Ray’s first idea for improving Hancock’s popularity is to have him go to jail for his outstanding subpoenas, showing LA just how much they need him as the crime rate soars. Now I may be wrong, but a man who we’re supposed to sympathise with, who is trying to start a charity, would not suggest that for the sake of Hancock’s image that he let people be put into terrible danger, but that’s what happens. When Hancock is let out by the mayor to stop a bank robbery he successfully listens to Ray’s (oddly sleazy) PR advice and everyone loves him for it. This is basically the major plotline done and dusted, and it moves onto his origin and never references this major element of the film again.

His origin, the great mystery of the film, is revealed thanks to the completely obvious twist that Ray’s wife, Mary, is also a superhero! Hooray for convenience. This, in itself, is bad, but the actual origin is much worse; they are immortals who were built 3,000 years ago by… someone… and they’ve lived as superheroes/gods/angels since then. The Immortals were also built in pairs and he and Mary are (genetically??) husband and wife. The reason for his amnesia is that when two immortals are close together they start to lose their powers, Hancock had a head injury while stopping a crime 80 years ago and Mary flew off to let him heal. The actual origin of Hancock, or what he and Mary really are, is and vague and the film leaves you feeling like nothing was actually ever explained, aside from the amnesia, which feels like an poor excuse for a plot device anyway.

It’s a script that feels full of half-baked ideas and excuses, yet surprisingly this script was passed around Hollywood for 10 years before it was put into production. It had numerous rewrites and yet still only achieved the status of “mediocre”.

The other major issue with the film is in the casting, mostly of Hancock himself. Will Smith is a talented actor, he has shown that in his career, but he is completely unsuited for the part of Hancock. His anger and careless attitude feel like a pantomime and his status as a “destitute hero” at the start is just not conveyed in the performance. I wouldn’t be surprised if Smith himself just saw this as a paycheck, everything about it is half-hearted and I just wasn’t immersed at all.

In short, this is a bad film. One that isn’t even amusing in its incompetence, merely boring.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0014429/

Dir. Fred C. Newmeyer & Sam Taylor

An iconic Harold Lloyd silent comedy, famous primarily for the sequence where he dangles precariously from the hands of a clock 15-storeys off the ground.

I went into this screening curious, I had read about Harold Lloyd years earlier when researching Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton, yet I had never seen his work. Sometimes when watching a silent movie they can feel like a lot of work, you have to keep in mind the era in which they were produced, but this was far from the case for Safety Last! It was a fantastic comedy, its age apparent in its production, but not in it’s humour or character; I think that laughed and cringed just as much as the audiences did on it’s original release.

It’s a classic farcical tale, Lloyd has gone to the big city to earn his fortune, only he is failing miserably and resorts to lying to his fiancé back home about his successes, when she comes to visit he tries to cover his real status up. It’s packed with old gags but they are perfectly performed, even if you can predict many of them you still laugh thanks to the impeccable timing of Harold Lloyd. I was honestly amazed at how much I laughed throughout the film, genuine belly-laughs, not just a polite “I’m a film student so I must appreciate this” weak laugh. It is one of the funniest films I’ve watched all year and it’s 86 years old, that’s a hell of an achievement.

I was astonished by how convincing the production was. The pivotal sequence of the movie involves Lloyd climbing up the side of massive building. When watching this you are absolutely convinced he is making the perilous ascent, you can see the buildings and the movement of the traffic down on the ground behind him, and every wobble and slip makes you feel that gripping internal gasp. It was achieved by building a fake building side on top of several other buildings and while safer, it was still a risky stunt. It’s telling that the reality of the sequence and the knowledge that it predates the trick photography to create it makes it that much more tense.

It’s a real gem of a film, a treat that everyone who enjoys a good comedy should watch, regardless of its age.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450405/

Dir. Paul Weitz

I ended up seeing this entirely at random and it was a waste of my time.

The film is a total and utter mess. It’s the story of Darren Shan (who is definitely not a self-insert for the author Darren O’Shaughnessy) a boy who is obsessed with spiders and his friend, Steve, who is obsessed with vampires. One night they go to a super-secret freakshow, which consists mostly of talented actors embarrassing themselves, and see a vampire, Mr Crepsley, perform with a deadly CGI spider. Once the show is over Steve insists that Mr Crepsley should turn him into a vampire, Crepes refuses because Steve’s blood “tastes evil” and Steve gets in a huff and storms off. Darren, meanwhile, nicks the CGI spider and goes home.

Darren, cleverly, takes the insanely deadly spider to school where it gets pissed off with being a waste of rendering time and bites Steve. In order to save his friend’s life Darren goes to Crepes and asks if he’ll give Steve the antidote. Crepes agrees, providing Darren becomes his half-vampire assistant, which he does.

Then there’s a whole bunch of crap about a fat guy who wants to bring about a war, Vampires and Vampaneze (the latter kill, the former don’t), and Steve getting really whiny about Darren “taking his place” as a vampire and becoming a Vampaneze and then fighting Darren.

The story is just trite, a mash of uninspired concepts and bland fantasy. The characters have nothing about them and it’s completely bizarre to see stars like Selma Hyack and Willem Defoe lend their time to them. The film has no idea whether it wants to be a comedy or a fantasy drama. Jokes will be followed seconds later by serious events but there’s no transition or subtlety which means neither element works. The performance of Darren is ham-fisted and flat, there’s nothing about him; bland and boring he’s essentially a fart in the wind.

It’s a film obviously made to cash in on the popularity of vampires, which has been roused by the teenage obsession for the godawful Twilight series, and feels like a rushed project. It’s not horrifically bad, but it’s not good either, it’s mediocre and forgettable on every level.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120382/

Dir. Peter Weir

I’ll preface my thoughts by saying that this has been one of my favourite films since I first saw it back on its release in cinemas.

The Truman Show is the film that proved Jim Carrey could act. It combines a bizarre, outlandish idea with satire and a heartfelt character exploration superbly. It’s a film that I find impossible to resist once I start watching it and unlike many other great movies it doesn’t lose much by repeated viewings, the core concept of a man coming to terms with his reality being something quite different to his assumptions speaks to everyone, it’s an experience most people go through at some point in life. Our expectations are dashed, we are awash in confusion about who we are, what we’re doing and ask the excruciatingly philosophical question of ‘why?’ In The Truman Show we’re voyeurs to this experience, we can identify with Truman, and at the same time we feel the disdain at the idea of such an intrusive television presence.

A very early comment on the rise of reality television it still rings true today. TV has grown as intrusive and voyeuristic as is legally allowed today; we’re barraged with images of people best and worst moments, from simple game show rubbish to grotesque images that fill the news, reality is distorted and presented in a way that is deemed palatable.

The Truman Show always raises these questions for me and to this day they haven’t been answered. The advent of ubiquitous internet access has only complicated the matter further as more and more of people’s lives and opinions become exposed for the world to see (oh the brutal irony of highlighting this in a blog).

It could go without saying that the production, direction and performances in the film are excellent. If they weren’t then I would be focused more on those elements instead of the wider societal questions that the film presents. It is a film that shows the potential for the medium to examine and entertain without making compromises to either element.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465430/

Dir. Paul Andrew Williams

This is a British horror/comedy starring Andy Serkis, Reece Sheersmith and Jennifer Ellison. It’s essentially a two-part movie like From Dusk Till Dawn, complete with the abrupt switch in tone. The first section is a bungling crime caper and the second section is a slasher film and while both sections are enjoyable in their own right they don’t quite blend together as a whole.

I discovered, when watching it with the director’s commentary, that a lot of decisions about the structure (notably separating the crime and horror sections of the film) were made during editing; there was even an entire character cut out of the narrative because it wasn’t working. While some of these changes are for the better, which you can see watching the deleted scenes, the harsh separation of the two elements of the film does not feel like it was the best choice. The trailers for the movie, the posters and the DVD case all advertise it as a horror/comedy; keeping the horror out of the film for a long period of time creates an odd impatient for the film to arrive at what appears to be it’s main plotline.

In terms of horror the film is occasionally successful. There is little tension to the piece as a whole because the comedy is mixed so readily with the horror, unlike Shaun of the Dead where comedy occasionally takes a back seat to let the horror and drama work, but there are some moments of unexpected gore and actions that work to disgust the audience. The visual production is fantastic and it’s this that builds the majority of the horrific atmosphere; it complements the sick idea of the farmer who steals faces (even though this idea isn’t communicated as well as it could have been) and is one of the films strengths.

What really shines through the piece are the performances from Andy Serkis, Reece Sheersmith and Jennifer Ellison (Steven O’Donnell deserves a mention for being funny, even though it’s essentially the same role he always plays). It’s what keeps the film together and the performances and comedy are why it’s worth watching.