MovieChat Forums > A Bunch of Amateurs Discussion > Amusing more than funny

Amusing more than funny

posted 15 years ago by cunningham1471
16 replies | jump to latest

I saw the film today. it has it's moments but there aen't any real laugh out loud moments, well not for me anyway. This film is very typically British and fortunately not the usual Richard Curtis predictable romantic comedy that we've had over the last couple of decade or so.
I would put this film in the same bracket as Saving Grace and the two Doc Martin films (which spawned the TV series) in feel and look.
Burt Reynolds gives quite a subdued performance. He is good but not up to the standard of his other comedies such as Smokey and the Bandit, Hooper, The Cannonball Run etc.
Imelda Staunton had the chance to shine and probably would have with a better script. She reminded me a lot of Brenda Blethyn in this role.
Derek Jacobi was wasted in this film IMO as was Samantha Bond. It was good that it didn't fall into the usual traps of predictability although there was one bit that was telegraphed well in advance.

A good film worth seeing but probablt when it gets onto TV. In fact that is part of the problem it did feel like an TV comedy movie like the ones Robson Green does. This film is no threat to Four Christmases which I would say is the better film to go and see if you haven't seen it.

4/10

[–] dworf13 15 years ago

Yeah I agree this is an amusing movie, but it hardly has a moment that makes you laugh out loud. I was disapointed to see that it only has an average rating of 5.6 esp when you consider some of the movies that are rated above 6

[–] Dalazen_Junior 15 years ago

Well, it wasn't meant to be Oscar contender. But if it is entertaining and a light film, what the hell, it is fine by me. Burt, for the first time, counts with a supporting cast of really terrific actors, and the story is quite touching. All right, it isn't exactly original, but so what. I remember 3 men and a little lady, the film took place in England. Not original and not memorable, but I had a great time watching it and I think it was great. So, I guess people should watch A Bunch of Amateurs expecting a light, amusing entertainment. This isn't There Will be Blood, it isn't 2001, but guess what, sometimes those light and simple films are just what we need to lighten up and have some fun. I hope the film makes some money in UK, and people get to discover it.

[–] dworf13 15 years ago

Well said. I liked it, just didn't think it was funny. I don't think any of it was filmed in England, I believe it was filmed on the 'Isle of Man'

[–] Dalazen_Junior 15 years ago

I just hope that this film is a new beginning for Burt, to have more quality projects like this. I don't like him in being next in some sort of Spoof film, I tink it is an awful mistake he is making, after this interesting project with actors of the caliber of Derek and Imelda.

[–] cunningham1471 15 years ago

I hope this is a new begnning for Burt as well. As I mentioned in my OP he was good in films like Hooper, Smokey and the Bandit and The Cannonball Run. When he is given a better script he can deliver the goods. he would be better in something like Dirty Rotten Scoundrals for example.

I don't know if the director was telling them to tone it down or not but the whole cast seemed to be just going through the motions IMO. The cast is better than this script and this film.

I don't think that the unoriginal storyline was too much of a problem. I think it fell short because it didn't really have any interesting characters that stand out. Both Derek and Imelda's charcters should have been two of the character's that did.

[–] alan_curtis 15 years ago

I don't know why so many reviews say it was "amusing" but no real laughs. Perhaps it's a difference across the Atlantic. I'm British and saw it with a crowd of Brits and there was laughing out loud most of the way through. We loved it, despite the bad reviews it has received here. I think I would agree that the acting could have been better in places, and Derek Jacobi could have been better used, but surely the point is - did I enjoy it, and the answer is YES!

[–] Dalazen_Junior 15 years ago

let's face it - anything that Burt Reynolds does is instantly killed by the critics. They hate Burt Reynolds almost in a fanatic way. On the other hand, Robert De Niro and Al Pacino could just stay still and critics would still call their acting fantastic. Personally, I love Burt Reynolds and think he is one true legend. Never liked De Niro (Oh my God this De Niro guy is always wearing a facial expression like he is in pain or something. I just hope he retire, because make films must be so painful to him. *beep* hate this guy) and Pacino (he thinks that acting is screaming his lungs out).

[–] cunningham1471 15 years ago

As far as I know this film still hasn't opened in the US. It's Brits that are calling it amusing. Well this one is anyway. I think the reason that it got such a roug ride from the critics is because the cast is strong enough to pull off a decent comedy given the right script and this wasn't it.
Also I think it falls into the trap of not being the next big British hit like Four Weddings, Thr Full Monty, Little Voice and the list goes on.
You know what the British media and critics are like. If it's not as good as the last one then it's crap. There is no grey area.

I could have easily have done the same and said it didn't make me roar with laughter there for it's abysmal. I chose to be more positive and honest and call it amusing as that is what i found it to be. I like Burt Reynolds and it was actually him being in the film that made me want to see it. Had it been Steve Martin or someone I wouldn't have bothered.

The basic idea was there, the script was more or less there and just needed tweaking and the cast was strong enough to make a good film. For whatever reason it didn't all come together and make as good a film as it could have been.

[–] megatosspot 15 years ago

Part of the problem was the soundtrack. It was soporific.

[–] peter_lumley 14 years ago

I loved the soundtrack and the movie. good job!

Peter

[–] katentek 14 years ago

A really enjoyable film. Nothing about it to complain about and a heart warming and entertaining piece of work ... well paced, directed and acted. 5.6 ... a REALLY unfair rating. Must be because there was no CGI.

"Everything is safe till it goes wrong" - Joe Simpson, "Touching the Void" - book only.

[–] Tess-tastic 14 years ago

Must be because there was no CGI - I think you've hit the nail on the head!

[–] jgw321 13 years ago

dworf13 said: "I don't think any of it was filmed in England, I believe it was filmed on the 'Isle of Man'"

Wrong! Although the main film was shot in the Isle of Man, there was a scene at Heathrow Airport, a shot of the M25 (with moving traffic) and a passing shot of Stratford St Mary (where the film was set, though they called it Stratford St John) taken from the A12, just for starters, there may have been more.

JG

[–] scotgraham 9 years ago

It was predictable and the type of film I have seen loads of times but it did raise a few chuckles without being laugh out loud, though most of the jokes were run of the mill. Acting was the main plus of this, I enjoyed Staunton and Durning particularly. Average and not memorable to watch again but fine if you stumble across it on tv like I did tonight.

[–] Prismark10 9 years ago

Its a kind of film done money times before. Predictably charming and amusing. Worth it to see Reynolds mangling Shakespeare.

Its that man again!!

[–] Ambrosia-I 9 years ago

Corny and sweet natured, I enjoyed it. I was quite touched at certain points. Imelda Staunton and Derek Jacobi are always excellent value and Burt was good, too.