A movie comes, not so often, that can have some really bad elements; it can be a bad movie. But at the same time, it can have some really good elements; adding the bad elements, it is a regular movie. The number 6 means regular movie, but doesn't necessarily means some good and bad elements.
For example, this is a comedy and it doesn't generate much laughs. I mean, it is not that you're crying during the film. You're smiling, but not laughing out-loud. The premise for the film is a totally original, and a very good one. The problem is that it doesn't convince. The story isn't that believable because it is impossible for the filmmakers to make something different. You can tell they are afraid being different won't work. Maybe they should be, but people will never find out if this movie could have been a lot better; it had the elements to achieve that goal.
I was loving it; creating a character in a movie that loves movies and wants to make another movie. Not so confusing as it sounds. Critical Jim calls himself a critic. The interesting thing is that he is a murderer, but loves old movies; classics. He loves movies that much that he knows the best lines of each classic; and says the line, together with the name of the movie and the studio. Impressing. He loves movies that much that he creates secret codes with the letters of director's and actor's last names or names. This is an incredibly original character. I don't remember seeing something similar before. But is just Critical Jim the only original character. The others; we have seen them before. Another disappointment is that the premise is based on Critical Jim's character and his love for movies. But the movie betrays Critical Jim, betrays its story, and it ultimately betrays itself. Not funny, but with comedic actors in it. Tim Allen plays Critical Jim, in a delightful and surprising performance at the same time. This film could give him a lesson about choosing parts/roles. He plays Critical Jim like you've never seen him, totally distanced from his usual roles. It's the first time I have seen him acting naturally, and not doing the stupid things he usually does. It actually works better for him that way (or at least better than in "The Santa Clause" and "Jungle To Jungle"). This is his best performance, alongside with the one in "Galaxy Quest".
As I said, the rest of the characters are familiar. Christian Slater's Finch is just another character that doesn't need any special gift to be played. It could be played by anyone, but I was not disappointed by Slater's performance (which doesn't mean I was amazed). He is not the greatest actor. He has had a calmed career and I hope he continues that way. I remember loving him in "The name of the rose". Portia de Rossi is not the right choice for her role, and doesn't seem comfortable playing it, but gives her best anyway (and that's not much). Dreyfuss could be playing a small part, more than a title one. He is natural and gives some of the comedic rhythm the film lacks. RuPaul is in the cover, but...why?
Finch tells the story to Critical Jim because the critic likes old movies, and wants to make a movie of the story. A movie with the elements of an old movie; a classic. Unluckily, the flashback they create doesn't have the elements of an old movie, as they suppose it has. It has the elements of the movies we see everyday.
For example, this is a comedy and it doesn't generate much laughs. I mean, it is not that you're crying during the film. You're smiling, but not laughing out-loud. The premise for the film is a totally original, and a very good one. The problem is that it doesn't convince. The story isn't that believable because it is impossible for the filmmakers to make something different. You can tell they are afraid being different won't work. Maybe they should be, but people will never find out if this movie could have been a lot better; it had the elements to achieve that goal.
I was loving it; creating a character in a movie that loves movies and wants to make another movie. Not so confusing as it sounds. Critical Jim calls himself a critic. The interesting thing is that he is a murderer, but loves old movies; classics. He loves movies that much that he knows the best lines of each classic; and says the line, together with the name of the movie and the studio. Impressing. He loves movies that much that he creates secret codes with the letters of director's and actor's last names or names. This is an incredibly original character. I don't remember seeing something similar before. But is just Critical Jim the only original character. The others; we have seen them before. Another disappointment is that the premise is based on Critical Jim's character and his love for movies. But the movie betrays Critical Jim, betrays its story, and it ultimately betrays itself. Not funny, but with comedic actors in it. Tim Allen plays Critical Jim, in a delightful and surprising performance at the same time. This film could give him a lesson about choosing parts/roles. He plays Critical Jim like you've never seen him, totally distanced from his usual roles. It's the first time I have seen him acting naturally, and not doing the stupid things he usually does. It actually works better for him that way (or at least better than in "The Santa Clause" and "Jungle To Jungle"). This is his best performance, alongside with the one in "Galaxy Quest".
As I said, the rest of the characters are familiar. Christian Slater's Finch is just another character that doesn't need any special gift to be played. It could be played by anyone, but I was not disappointed by Slater's performance (which doesn't mean I was amazed). He is not the greatest actor. He has had a calmed career and I hope he continues that way. I remember loving him in "The name of the rose". Portia de Rossi is not the right choice for her role, and doesn't seem comfortable playing it, but gives her best anyway (and that's not much). Dreyfuss could be playing a small part, more than a title one. He is natural and gives some of the comedic rhythm the film lacks. RuPaul is in the cover, but...why?
Finch tells the story to Critical Jim because the critic likes old movies, and wants to make a movie of the story. A movie with the elements of an old movie; a classic. Unluckily, the flashback they create doesn't have the elements of an old movie, as they suppose it has. It has the elements of the movies we see everyday.