The result is that he ends up emphasizing the weaknesses and inconsistencies of the script, rather than mitigating them. He doesn’t try to make sense of the characters, but rather allows (or encourages) the cast to make extreme choices - whatever extreme choice it takes to get a laugh in the moment. In his first theatrical film, director Jeff Tomsic doesn’t do much with the actors but ride the erratic tides of the script. And even when there aren’t laughs to be had, they can sometimes find one. And Jake Johnson is not a household name, but he was funny in “Drinking Buddies” and “Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates.” The people here know how to get laughs, if there are laughs to be had. Then there’s Hannibal Buress - very funny. And there’s no question that Ed Helms is funny, and so is Isla Fisher. Jon Hamm, if you haven’t noticed from other movies, is funny. It’s the kind of movie that makes the viewer ask questions, such as, why isn’t this working? Why is this bombing? Why is this dying the death? Why am I shifting in my seat just to stay conscious? The movie seems like it should be funny, but it’s not, so why?Įverybody in the movie is funny, or could be. “Tag” isn’t interesting at all, but its failure is. That’s the good kind of interesting failure. Maybe they attempt something new, and it doesn’t quite work, but it’s still fairly absorbing. There are movies that are interesting, but they fail anyway. In the movies, there are two kinds of interesting failures.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |