If you can't tell what it was, that certainly doesn't mean it was pretentious. It probably just means you didn't get the film. To be honest, I'd call it a drama with comedic tones, but that depends on how you define films. Which brings up the question... does every film need a specific category, really? How about just a story you like? Sometimes I feel like putting everything in a genre actually does a great disservice to films. Or that people see a certain actor, and assume that they'll play a role similar to a past role.
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, at all, but I get the sense that most who found the film boring or were confused as to the comedic value, just are people who don't like films like these, or prefer more obvious comedy, than subtle stuff. That, or they really loved what they saw of Helms in "The Hangover" or "The Office", or Reilly in any number of (no offense, but) kinda goofy Will Ferrell projects. Most of that stuff (aside from some "Office" episodes) is pretty straightforward comedy. Not really the BEST kind of comedy, but it's obviously supposed to be funny.
Subtle comedy can be found in drama, a lot. This movie was less goof, more drama, but DID have plenty of humor - just not what you're used to seeing these actors pull off. I think both Helms and Reilly were much better than usual here, to be honest. Both of these guys obviously have both dramatic and comedic chops. I hope to see them do more of this, myself.
Finally, I personally like a movie that mixes genres. I don't mind feeling a little amused and disturbed when I see a scene like the one where Mr. Naive goes to a backwoods crack house party. Keeps me on my toes and interested. I wouldn't have predicted that scene.
reply
share