I was pleasantly surprised by this comedy/action movie.
The story was actually pretty good, though you see the twist mostly coming before it does. (I didn't think he'd kill the chick though at the end)
Rob was hysterical as the drunk drinking out of the gun, and his insults.
One confusing thing...what in the world did this have to do with the Barrack Obama election? That whole aspect seemed ambigous and not very clear.
If you wouldn't mind answering one question for me.
How big/memorable of a part did Emilie de Ravin's character have. She and Joe Anderson are currently my two favorite actors and I know Joe's sort of the lead, but I'm curious as to how good Emilie's role is.
'To be Irish is to know that in the end the world will break your heart"
[deleted]
I'd say not enough to warrant a purchase, but enough to warrant a viewing.
shareWell I'm going to buy it for Joe Anderson anyways, but I was just hoping that Emilie might have a stronger part too. That sucks but oh well. Thank you
'To be Irish is to know that in the end the world will break your heart"
Well I'm going to buy it for Joe Anderson anyways, but I was just hoping that Emilie might have a stronger part too. That sucks but oh well. Thank you
'To be Irish is to know that in the end the world will break your heart"
But what did the Election have to do with it?
shareIt was the premise of the whole plot. High-ups in the intelligence services wanted to retrieve and hide some important informations so that the new administration wouldn't know about them, since Obama used to talk about the whole transparent government bs back then.
sharereally liked it... a good flick
shareJust watched it having known absolutely nothing about who was in it or what kind of film it was and absolutely loved it. I was hugely entertained, laughing loudly through-out, sometimes astounded by how well lines were delivered by the amazing cast. The only disappointment for me was how brief Bob Odenkirk and Ving Rames' screen times were.
I'm surprised at the negative reaction it's getting. I'd say that people were expecting a different type of film, like say one where Zack Galifianakis makes jokes about being hung-over after a hilariously slapstick night on the town, and felt cheated as a result. That's not the film's fault, that's just bollocky marketing and not watching the film within its own context.
Would it be fair to assume that the majority of the nay-sayers are americans not used to / fans of dry sarcastic humour? This isn't a dig, I'm just curious. I saw someone else remark that it was an american film for bristish audiences. I have to say that I agree. Anecdotaly, any american I've come across has been way more into straight forward humour so I presume it's a cultural thing. I remember watching Youth in Revolt with an american friend and while I was in stitches throughout, he found the experience quite sedating. Having said that, there will no doubt be an american who enjoyed it and a brit who thought it was pants, I just mean generally.
Another reason might also be that the film's tone evolves as it progresses. It depresses me no end that so many films are crafted specifically to fit within a stylistic mold. People might react angrily if they are forced out of their cliché-draped comfort zones but (for me anyway) it makes the experience far more entertaining if you can't predict what's around the corner. I don't like seeing the same story retold over and over without exploring new ideas.
I thought that it was well scripted, the violence was hilarious and that the tone was nice and dark. More of that please!
I'm going to have to (respectfully) disagree with you, but with certain concessions. There were definitely some fun dry humor moments, but they were too few and far between. The script strikes me as very juvenile and often pointless; for instance, is it REALLY that funny that these female characters have supposedly slept with powerful world leaders? Why do we have to mention that, for a cheap laugh? I understand that they're trying to make a workplace comedy on steroids by having the plot revolve around rival teams of assassins competing for survival, but there was DEFINITELY a better way to go about it.
My big problems with the film:
The fight scenes were poorly choreographed despite the obvious enthusiasm of the performers. The sound effects were shoddy and often delayed during the combat scenes involving weapons (Emperor vs. Empress, for example) and were overall incredibly disappointing. These half-assed fight sequences contributed to the film's ineptitude; if the story hinges on skilled assassins battling for their very lives, why would the fight sequences last for about a minute and consist of a bunch of silly blocks and punches before ending with somebody driving a random object into his opponents face?
The story itself was incredibly flimsy. Certain things didn't even make sense. The rivalry between the teams is underdeveloped to the point where we don't even care what happens.
Characters and relationships were criminally underdeveloped. I understand not giving backstory or too much info on the characters to keep with the idea that these assassins live by code names and secrecy is key, but everybody had the same personality. They were all just...dull. Quiet, sulky, brooding, grumpy, sarcastic, and bitchy. This is NOT the performers' fault; they all tried to imbue their respective characters with something fun and interesting, but it was all too hackneyed and crummy in the end. The writers also killed off the characters too easily and too swiftly.
This film belonged to Fool, Temperance, Empress, and the two Surveillance Guys; a.k.a. the least interesting characters. We've seen this before! The "couple" rekindling their romance after a messy past, the ruthless bitch, and the squabbling friends who oversee the action from the safety of their chairs. Chariot was even underused despite being one of the best parts of the film. Too few performers were allowed to stretch their wings and show their stuff during the incredibly short, boring movie. Hermit's role in this charade was unclear and it was reflected in Galifianakis' portrayal of the character; his face and actions seemed to say, "what the *beep* am I doing here?"
This movie boasted a comedy dream team: every single performer was/is capable of home-run comedy of any type: dark, dry, slapstick, etc. I would KILL to have all those talented performers in a movie where I could harness their potential and make something amazing, which is precisely what the director failed to do. This meandering, useless film was chock full of brilliant stars and it seems as though the director just didn't care and decided the film could rest on the cast's shoulders. How about guiding your performers.
Have to say it again: dialogue and story wise, the script was AWFUL!
This idea had OODLES of potential and instead became hard to sit through. I was NOT expecting a "Hangover" style "oh wow look at us being silly and falling down and cussing and being crazy" kind of movie; not all Americans require that kind of humor to have a good time. I anticipated funny, smart dialogue and dark humor with plenty of action and instead I ended up renting what amounted to a lifeless pile of garbage.