Yeah, this film wasn't as good as I thought when I watched it years ago. Once the story took over (the romance angle was unnecessary), along with the final act, the film bordered the line of 'bad.' Hell, you could say the film overall was the same. To an extent. I was still somewhat entertained this time; there were specific moments that were funny and even seemed odd, almost, because the overall comedy wasn't it. But not as much as I wanted.
One thing I noticed was how, for a film directed and co-written by Seth MacFarlane, the film's weakest part was him. From reviews I've read, that seems to be a popular opinion. I felt the same way. I wouldn't say his character ruined the film, but it would've been better without his character. The specific moments that were funny didn't come from him.
I thought most of the comedy was just alright. A few moments scattered throughout the film did the trick; the comedy itself was the problem. But those few moments weren't enough. I think this film was at its best when it was nonsensical, in a way, especially with the random comedic moments.
In that vein, I thought Neil Patrick Harris was the biggest draw of this film. His performance did a lot for the enjoyment factor while watching this, and dare I say, I think there wasn't enough screen time with him. The fact that mostly the rest of the film didn't carry their weight, at least close to his level, probably made that sentiment of wanting him back on the screen much more prominent.
Adding to what I said about the story at the beginning of my review, I feel like once it started being the focus instead of a setting and life within it, nothing more, nothing less, with a bunch of random, nonsensical comedic moments, the film suffered. Then again, that means the writing wasn't so good, especially when not having the story aspect would've made what you got better than it was.
But even though the point (comedy) of the film mostly "failed"/didn't land, there were some other notable aspects. I mean, the comedy still mostly "failed"/didn't land, and that's the most important part, so those other aspects didn't save the film.
However, they do deserve recognition.
Firstly, the cinematography. Out of the other notable aspects of this film, the cinematography stood out the most. It was well-done and also had specific shots of the scenery that were beautiful. Surprisingly well-done, I should say. This film's a comedy. For the cinematography to stand out, let alone be this well-done, was a pleasant surprise.
Secondly, the soundtrack/score. And I'm mentioning both soundtrack and score because of the 'If You've Only Got a Moustache' song by Amick Byram. It was good, too. The score itself, also. For some reason, I always think a film's score had so few cues until I looked it up: and there were loads of them; it was no different with this one. The composer, Joel McNeely, did a good job.
I know that's only two aspects, but that's still two aspects. I was going to mention the acting performance by Neil Patrick Harris and some of Seth MacFarlane's, along with the general acting performances being decent, and I guess I just did. But that didn't seem noteworthy, although Evan Jones' performance stood out a bit. I almost wish he was the main antagonist; he gave off stronger villain vibes. The acting isn't that important in a comedy film. If it were super bad, that would be noteworthy.
There's one last thing I think is worth acknowledging: that's the few surprising cameos. Bill Maher. Then, Christopher Lloyd as Doc Brown. That was a good one. Ryan Reynolds. And then, the icing AND cherry on top, Jamie Foxx as Django at the end. Christopher Lloyd as Doc Brown and Jamie Foxx as Django were a bit outrageous because of the obvious, but still good. There were other cameos, too. I didn't get them or care for them.
This film seems slightly divisive. Some people seem to like it a lot for what it was, while others dislike it a lot for what it was. I'm in the middle. I'll acknowledge this: there were some funny moments. But as far as my opinion is concerned, I think what it was wasn't enough. What it was could've had different writing or been written better, and the film would've been better. And it was longer than it should've been.
In other words, I understand both sides, but I'm not to the extreme of either one. I am, however, more on the side of those who disliked this film. It was more entertaining the first time, years ago.
Review by LineageBlockedParent2022-06-22T20:10:33Z
"Seems you owe me six cents, sheepherder."
Yeah, this film wasn't as good as I thought when I watched it years ago. Once the story took over (the romance angle was unnecessary), along with the final act, the film bordered the line of 'bad.' Hell, you could say the film overall was the same. To an extent. I was still somewhat entertained this time; there were specific moments that were funny and even seemed odd, almost, because the overall comedy wasn't it. But not as much as I wanted.
One thing I noticed was how, for a film directed and co-written by Seth MacFarlane, the film's weakest part was him. From reviews I've read, that seems to be a popular opinion. I felt the same way. I wouldn't say his character ruined the film, but it would've been better without his character. The specific moments that were funny didn't come from him.
I thought most of the comedy was just alright. A few moments scattered throughout the film did the trick; the comedy itself was the problem. But those few moments weren't enough. I think this film was at its best when it was nonsensical, in a way, especially with the random comedic moments.
In that vein, I thought Neil Patrick Harris was the biggest draw of this film. His performance did a lot for the enjoyment factor while watching this, and dare I say, I think there wasn't enough screen time with him. The fact that mostly the rest of the film didn't carry their weight, at least close to his level, probably made that sentiment of wanting him back on the screen much more prominent.
Adding to what I said about the story at the beginning of my review, I feel like once it started being the focus instead of a setting and life within it, nothing more, nothing less, with a bunch of random, nonsensical comedic moments, the film suffered. Then again, that means the writing wasn't so good, especially when not having the story aspect would've made what you got better than it was.
But even though the point (comedy) of the film mostly "failed"/didn't land, there were some other notable aspects. I mean, the comedy still mostly "failed"/didn't land, and that's the most important part, so those other aspects didn't save the film.
However, they do deserve recognition.
Firstly, the cinematography. Out of the other notable aspects of this film, the cinematography stood out the most. It was well-done and also had specific shots of the scenery that were beautiful. Surprisingly well-done, I should say. This film's a comedy. For the cinematography to stand out, let alone be this well-done, was a pleasant surprise.
Secondly, the soundtrack/score. And I'm mentioning both soundtrack and score because of the 'If You've Only Got a Moustache' song by Amick Byram. It was good, too. The score itself, also. For some reason, I always think a film's score had so few cues until I looked it up: and there were loads of them; it was no different with this one. The composer, Joel McNeely, did a good job.
I know that's only two aspects, but that's still two aspects. I was going to mention the acting performance by Neil Patrick Harris and some of Seth MacFarlane's, along with the general acting performances being decent, and I guess I just did. But that didn't seem noteworthy, although Evan Jones' performance stood out a bit. I almost wish he was the main antagonist; he gave off stronger villain vibes. The acting isn't that important in a comedy film. If it were super bad, that would be noteworthy.
There's one last thing I think is worth acknowledging: that's the few surprising cameos. Bill Maher. Then, Christopher Lloyd as Doc Brown. That was a good one. Ryan Reynolds. And then, the icing AND cherry on top, Jamie Foxx as Django at the end. Christopher Lloyd as Doc Brown and Jamie Foxx as Django were a bit outrageous because of the obvious, but still good. There were other cameos, too. I didn't get them or care for them.
This film seems slightly divisive. Some people seem to like it a lot for what it was, while others dislike it a lot for what it was. I'm in the middle. I'll acknowledge this: there were some funny moments. But as far as my opinion is concerned, I think what it was wasn't enough. What it was could've had different writing or been written better, and the film would've been better. And it was longer than it should've been.
In other words, I understand both sides, but I'm not to the extreme of either one. I am, however, more on the side of those who disliked this film. It was more entertaining the first time, years ago.