MovieChat Forums > Gambit (2012) Discussion > It's not classic, but 5/10 is harsh

It's not classic, but 5/10 is harsh



Saw it last night at a preview. It's entertaining enough, moves quickly and had its fair share of laughs. I've seen worse films get higher ratings.

-------------------------------------

'Days of London' -http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xv3h3h_days-of-london-720p_sport#.UKRUNs37TDU

reply

My thoughts exactly. I've seen way worse comedies with higher ratings. This sure isnĀ“t laugh out loud all the way(although a couple of scenes are) but it played out really nice.

The low rating is inflated because cam diaz is in it...

reply

The rating is outrageously low.

Yet I do not think Cam Diaz is "to blame" for this. On another thread I already elaborated on another poster's hypothesis that wrong expectations were the cause.

I usually respect Mark Kermode but him rating it as the tenth worst film of the year is just ridiculous. However, everybody is human, and humans cannot avoid the power of expectations, or, for that matter, the power of thwarted expectations.

I can easily imagine Kermode (who normally has a very good sense of humour) going to watch it as a "Coens'" film. Another Fargo, as it were. Then, finding out that this was not the case - remember, Coens did not direct the film! - he just froze, and so did his sense of humour . So instead of relaxing and laughing at what was fully funny in the film, he just sat there and gritted his teeth at not finding the Coens, that he had come for.

To give Kermode his due, he DOES acknowledge that the film was not actually among the ten worst of the year, but he was simply expecting so much more. But then again, to say that there was not a single scene in the film that he would have found comical just shows how helpless people are once their sacred expectations are not fulfilled. I can empathise with him, but I truly believe that under normal circumstances his sense of humour would not have gone into a total freeze mode (which actually discredits him more than it discredits the film) - and he would have recognised that there are many very funny scenes in the film.Really funny, not vulgarly funny.


I lucked out in that I was waiting for the film and could not help but read about it beforehand. So MY expectations were that it would be an eerily UNfunny film that wastes all the stars active in it. I just went to see it out of curiosity as to how they (or, as I suspected, the director) had managed to do something so utterly miserable.

I also expected, based oh writings that date from the pre-production time, that Cameron Diaz was absolutely miscast for her role, that she was too old, that she would not be able to carry the comedy part.

I took my husband along - all the while fearing that that would be our last joint cinema experience. He is FAR more demanding where comedies are concerned - anything trite or vulgar usually sends him into a rage and if the film is watched at home, out of the room.

So the result? We were both laughing quite a lot throughout the film (as did our fellow watchers), and smiling for the rest of it. He found Diaz sexy and refreshing (just look at the body! There is a special thread here devoted to how good she looks) as well as admiring her - clearly overdone, but consciously overdone - Americanness and Texasness. Just like the Major in the film, he found her refreshing.

Now I do have more than a soft spot for Colin Firth. However, there are comedies with him in them that are downright awful - "Accidental Husband" comes to mind - a real flop that would have deserved to be the first on Kermode's list of the worst films of that year. Or "Bridget Jones 2". Or "What a girl wants" - the director and the female main character totally destroyed it. Or "Hope Springs" - I still have not worked out what exactly went wrong with that, but something did. Not only the director and the female character but Firth himself, too.

So I am not claiming that once a film has Firth in it, it has to be a good film. But this one is a decent comedy, and all the main characters are good, including Firth. It may not be as edgy or zany as, say, Fargo, but as to not having a single chuckle during the whole film - come on! Also, the film is far more complex than the critics make it out to be. It moves from the patently absurd (and hilarious, as in the case of "taming the lion") to understatement (the receptionists in Savoy), it plays with one's expectations in that it fits no mold of a definite comedic genre, as well as plotwise". It is by no means trite or predictable.

To NOT be able to chuckle during the film shows either that the viewer has no sense of humour at all, or that this is suppressed by different expectations (as I suppose was the case with Kermode).

reply

Excellent summing-up, distantobserver! I had thought it would be an "update" of the original "Gambit," and was pleasantly surprised when it had some different plotlines going on. Colin Firth and Alan Rickman were great, and I got a big kick out of the unflappable desk clerks. There may have been other actresses who could have played Cameron Diaz' role better, but I thought she was fine. And, IMO, she looks great for her age!

reply

I very much enjoyed this movie and I'm quite shocked at the low ratings! Colin Firth's facial expressions are priceless!!!

reply

[deleted]

bettet than a 5/10 movie, yes - nut hey it's up at 5.7 - that's about what it is - 6.0 max

reply