Being a fan of the cast, I will admit that I didn't like the trailers for this. The premise seemed a bit too mean-spirited and didn't seem like one we could really relate to, and Steve Carell seemed to be presented as a cross between Michael Scott and Sandra Bullock's character from All About Steve, in other words, very annoying and irritating. So I caught a free advanced screening because I like the cast, but was unsure if I wanted to pay to see it.
I was pleasantly surprised that this made me laugh a good number of times, but I wouldn't call it this year's Hangover because it felt different. To me it was half funny and half not-so-funny and/or too weird.
Pros:
-The "mouseterpieces" were pretty inspired.
-The dinner sequence was the most consistently funny part of the movie.
-Jermaine Clement is the most consistently funny character of the bunch.
-Paul Rudd's brunch with Steve Carell, Lucy Punch, and David Walliams was one of my personal favorite scenes.
Mixed:
-Steve Carell, Zach Galifianakis, and Lucy Punch all made me laugh at points, but the problem I have with their kinds of characters is that they don't really change throughout the movie, hence their routines get a bit tiresome for me.
Cons:
-The pacing was slower than The Hangover as well as other comedies I've seen as of late, thus I found a fair number of dull spots, particularly in the first two-thirds of the movie before the dinner. I think the movie was nearly two hours long.
-Certain people like Ron Livingston and Larry Wilmore felt underused.
-I like Paul Rudd and this is probably a fault of the script, but him playing the straight man has gotten kinda old. It's pretty much the same as I Love You, Man, but instead of focusing more on his social life like in that film, it focuses more on his professional life and it's not as interesting. He has some occasional quips, but the moments before he meets Steve Carell feel the most dull, and when he does meet him, Carell's outrageousness causes Rudd to take a backseat, and for a moment I forgot he was in the movie. However, like I said, this is more likely the fault of the script that causes him to just stand or sit and watch Carell rather than go head to head with him, which I believe Rudd, as a comedic actor, is capable of doing.
-More about the script, I could pretty much tell how it would end, but how it got there made the ending feel rather abrupt and quite unbelievable, mainly because of how it painted Rudd up to that point. Also, the script didn't feel like it left room for much improv, something which these actors have shown to be very good at, so most of the movie felt too heavily scripted and it seemed to drag it down a bit. Additionally, I didn't find the romance aspect strong enough story-wise to make me care all that much about Rudd. Stephanie Szostak was pretty cute, but she ain't Rashida Jones, and she's not in the movie much.
-This is a minor gripe, but some intense closeups were rather annoying.
Bottom Line:
All in all, despite my complaints, there were some good laughs to be had. It was a good one time watch, but I don't know if I'd want to pay to watch it again. However, if there were a spin off with Jermaine Clement, not unlike Russell Brand with Get Him to the Greek, I would pay to see that movie.
I was pleasantly surprised that this made me laugh a good number of times, but I wouldn't call it this year's Hangover because it felt different. To me it was half funny and half not-so-funny and/or too weird.
Pros:
-The "mouseterpieces" were pretty inspired.
-The dinner sequence was the most consistently funny part of the movie.
-Jermaine Clement is the most consistently funny character of the bunch.
-Paul Rudd's brunch with Steve Carell, Lucy Punch, and David Walliams was one of my personal favorite scenes.
Mixed:
-Steve Carell, Zach Galifianakis, and Lucy Punch all made me laugh at points, but the problem I have with their kinds of characters is that they don't really change throughout the movie, hence their routines get a bit tiresome for me.
Cons:
-The pacing was slower than The Hangover as well as other comedies I've seen as of late, thus I found a fair number of dull spots, particularly in the first two-thirds of the movie before the dinner. I think the movie was nearly two hours long.
-Certain people like Ron Livingston and Larry Wilmore felt underused.
-I like Paul Rudd and this is probably a fault of the script, but him playing the straight man has gotten kinda old. It's pretty much the same as I Love You, Man, but instead of focusing more on his social life like in that film, it focuses more on his professional life and it's not as interesting. He has some occasional quips, but the moments before he meets Steve Carell feel the most dull, and when he does meet him, Carell's outrageousness causes Rudd to take a backseat, and for a moment I forgot he was in the movie. However, like I said, this is more likely the fault of the script that causes him to just stand or sit and watch Carell rather than go head to head with him, which I believe Rudd, as a comedic actor, is capable of doing.
-More about the script, I could pretty much tell how it would end, but how it got there made the ending feel rather abrupt and quite unbelievable, mainly because of how it painted Rudd up to that point. Also, the script didn't feel like it left room for much improv, something which these actors have shown to be very good at, so most of the movie felt too heavily scripted and it seemed to drag it down a bit. Additionally, I didn't find the romance aspect strong enough story-wise to make me care all that much about Rudd. Stephanie Szostak was pretty cute, but she ain't Rashida Jones, and she's not in the movie much.
-This is a minor gripe, but some intense closeups were rather annoying.
Bottom Line:
All in all, despite my complaints, there were some good laughs to be had. It was a good one time watch, but I don't know if I'd want to pay to watch it again. However, if there were a spin off with Jermaine Clement, not unlike Russell Brand with Get Him to the Greek, I would pay to see that movie.