"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.
I enjoyed Ted to a fair degree and am a huge fan of Family Guy or McFarlane in general but this movie is absolutely terrible.
The acting is just awful (what do you expect, it's Seth playing a main character), the story is so frigging clichéd and the humour is plain bad.
You could argue about the humour, sure, again it's Seth McFarlane and he's known for using controverse methods for his humour. However, even or especially as a fan I really have to question what exactly is supposed to be funny about a man who gets his head crushed by a big chunk of ice while Seth and his idiotic friend are grossed out by it? Right. Nothing.
It served no purpose and wasn't funny at all. That moment physically hurt me from the second hand shame that I felt and it's just one of several of those moments.
Another cringeworthy moment is why the hell does the "villain" in this movie put up with the main characters crap when he's going to shoot him anyway? Stupidity as a lazy way for the desired plot progression of the villain being killed.
The whole movie seems to be an attempt of Ted just in much, much worse and really cringeworthy.
To see how far Seth McFarlane can go and still sell his crap.
The only good thing was a certain reference of one of the best movie franchises in the film history. That's it.
Do yourself a favour and don't watch it.
Review by Andrew BloomVIP 9BlockedParentSpoilers2020-02-26T23:59:50Z
[5.6/10] My wild speculation is that if you watched this movie, chances are you’ve watched Family Guy. While Seth MacFarlane’s long-running cartoon show has its flaws, most notably a continuing stream of casual sexism and racism, it put MacFarlane on the map. The show’s anything goes, free association comedy charmed scores of night owls and altered state aficionados watching the program on Adult Swim before it re-debuted on Fox.
A Million Ways to Die in the West, MacFarlane’s co-writer/director/star vehicle from 2014, aims to replicate much of that humor, and it’s hard to know whether those sorts of gags have grown old or I have. Suffice it to say, the film offers three basic strains of comedy: human waste exists, reproductive organs exist, and intercourse exists. Most of the film’s outright gags are built around those ideas, without an extra layer of cleverness to them, rendering the humor utterly dire.
The other part of the film’s comic setup comes from the title character, Albert Stark’s, disdain for how hopeless and deadly the Wild West of the 1880s is. The film unveils any number of absurd, mortal perils for its random side characters to run afoul of, each less inventive or amusing than the last. But when it’s not parceling those out or cutting to its fifth poo-based gag, the movie devolves into extended MacFarlane stand-up routines, where he just riffs for extended stretches on some facet of the West before its mercifully over.
But honestly, I’m hard-pressed to complain. MacFarlane’s scatalogical yuks and observational comedy aren’t my cup of tea, but A Million Ways’s comic stylings are largely in line with what he’s been known for throughout his career. If you signed up for this film because you liked Family Guy, you largely got what you wanted in the humor department.
What’s strange is that while the film is theoretically a comedy, and spackles its plot with plenty of irreverent bits, it’s a film that takes itself surprisingly seriously. The core of the narrative, and with it the movie, is that Albert’s girlfriend, Louise, breaks up with him, leaving him despondent as she was the one thing in this dusty deathtrap of a life that made him happy. Then, newcomer Anna shows up to town, helps him to show up Louise’s new beau, Foy, and learn that relationships are a two-way street. Naturally, Albert and Anna fall in love, as Albert learns that the woman helping him get over his ex is the woman he really loves.
That’s a stock story, one that fellow rude cartoon South Park made fun of in “Asspen”, its episode taking the stuffing out of teen sports movies. But if A Million Ways had used the generic love plot as a necessary clothesline on which to hang its dumb gags, it would be excusable in some ways. Folks don’t come to Seth MacFarlane projects for the heartstring-tugging stories or human drama; they come for the exaggerated humor. Sacrificing the former for the latter would have been on brand.
Instead, A Million Ways tries to have it...well...both ways. Between scenes where characters announce their sore buttholes or a villain craps into a cowboy hat, the movie tries to deliver a down-to-earth character story about a decent man mistreated by his former love, who learns that he really has a lot to offer and should find a woman who appreciates what he brings to the table, rather than just benevolently “allows” him to be happy. Scene after scene, conversation after conversation between Albert and Anna hits on these points as though this was the kind of film that could sustain them, and it’s the utter pits.
For one thing, Albert’s whole arc and being in the film reeks of the lamest brand of “Nice Guy” apologia and fantasy. Albert’s laudable attributes are declared much more than they’re ever seen (apart from one altruistic rescue), and yet he manages to attract the perfect woman who helps solve all his problems, show him the meaning of true love, and tell him he’s been great this whole time, and it’s everyone else who’s wrong. Even if A Million Ways had the chops to pull off its surprisingly large number of more serious moments, its message comes of as trite at best and pernicious nerd wish-fulfillment at worst.
It’s also just overextended. Say what you will about MacFarlane’s T.V. efforts or style of comedy, but his quick-hit, random humor is much more digestible in twenty-two minute chunks than in a nearly-two hour movie. There is so much unnecessary girth in this film, long sequences that should have been cut, redundant conversations, and unfunny extended gags, whose absence might have at least made the movie feel leaner. A Million Ways drags from beginning to end, not a great feature for a film marketed as a silly, enjoyable larf.
So if the film flounders as a comedy and crashes and burns as a drama, what is it any good at? Surprisingly, it’s not a bad western! MacFarlane and cinematographer Michael Barrett do a nice job shooting scenic desert vistas and roundly enjoyable action. There are horseback chases, stand-offs in the street, and saloon brawls that wouldn’t be out of place in a straight cowboy movie. And Liam Neeson’s Clinch Leatherwood, the movie’s big bad, makes for a stock but believable antagonist. As absurd and/or abysmal as the movie’s other elements are, it gets the Western trappings just right.
That’s not enough to make it worthwhile though. Whatever Family Guy’s strengths or weaknesses, it doesn't really need you to like protagonist Peter Griffin. The show’s characters are mostly thin joke machines, with rare exceptions. But A Million Ways to Die in the West is so built around Seth MacFarlane, his humor, and his worldview, that it absolutely needs the viewer to find him funny, charming, and sympathetic for any of this to work.
He isn’t, and it doesn't. If you come to this movie for laughs, you’ll be confused by its miscalibrated and overlong attempts at straight drama. If you’re somehow hoping for a human story, chances are you’ll be put off by the onslaught of puerile gags. And if you just wanted a funny western, you’ll only get the latter half. Either way, if you want to watch this movie because you enjoy MacFarlane’s shtick, you’re better off just watching a Family Guy rerun, without the strange baggage he brings to this meh-worthy cinematic outing.