Comments on: Moviegoers Who Stare at So-So Comedies http://lookingcloser.org/2009/11/moviegoers-who-stare-at-so-so-comedies/ The official website of Jeffrey Overstreet Tue, 26 Oct 2010 05:36:34 +0000 hourly 1 By: Molly http://lookingcloser.org/2009/11/moviegoers-who-stare-at-so-so-comedies/#comment-220846 Molly Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:16:15 +0000 http://lookingcloser.org/?p=74821#comment-220846 I just got my Entertainment Weekly yesterday and they gave it an F! I don't think I've ever seen a movie get an F before in EW...wow. I just got my Entertainment Weekly yesterday and they gave it an F! I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie get an F before in EW…wow.

]]> By: Chris http://lookingcloser.org/2009/11/moviegoers-who-stare-at-so-so-comedies/#comment-220824 Chris Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:29:41 +0000 http://lookingcloser.org/?p=74821#comment-220824 My feelings toward MWSAG were very similar. I laughed--at times I laughed very hard--but I never really felt the movie had a point to make or that there was anything strong to tie the story to. The actors were funny--I thought Clooney's explanation of how the Army's goal went from "being invisible" to "not being seen" was pretty good and Bridges was a high point. But there was no real solid target or theme...it was more "look how weird the Army is." People confuse the Coens' comedy with being quirky for quirkiness sake. The joy of a film like "Burn After Reading" or "Big Lebowski" isn't so much the quirks but how the quirks are used to riff on a genre of film and the genre's style..."Lebowski" is on the surface a stoner/bowler comedy but digging deeper it's a satire of Raymond Chandler mysteries and film noir style, especially in its convulted plot (which, wonderfully, ends up being pointless). And "Burn" is another riff on the political thriller, with the sound and editing hyped up to headache modes and characters shouting at each other...when, in the end, you realize nothing of consequence has happened. MWSAG is quirky just for the hell of it. That's not a bad thing. It's entertaining. But like you said, it evaporates quite quickly. Also, I know it was too late...but watching it Friday night and seeing a scene involving a character shooting up an Army base was just a little too close for comfort. I know it was too late to delay the film, but I'm surprised no one brought it up as a warning. My feelings toward MWSAG were very similar. I laughed–at times I laughed very hard–but I never really felt the movie had a point to make or that there was anything strong to tie the story to. The actors were funny–I thought Clooney’s explanation of how the Army’s goal went from “being invisible” to “not being seen” was pretty good and Bridges was a high point. But there was no real solid target or theme…it was more “look how weird the Army is.”

People confuse the Coens’ comedy with being quirky for quirkiness sake. The joy of a film like “Burn After Reading” or “Big Lebowski” isn’t so much the quirks but how the quirks are used to riff on a genre of film and the genre’s style…”Lebowski” is on the surface a stoner/bowler comedy but digging deeper it’s a satire of Raymond Chandler mysteries and film noir style, especially in its convulted plot (which, wonderfully, ends up being pointless). And “Burn” is another riff on the political thriller, with the sound and editing hyped up to headache modes and characters shouting at each other…when, in the end, you realize nothing of consequence has happened. MWSAG is quirky just for the hell of it.

That’s not a bad thing. It’s entertaining. But like you said, it evaporates quite quickly.

Also, I know it was too late…but watching it Friday night and seeing a scene involving a character shooting up an Army base was just a little too close for comfort. I know it was too late to delay the film, but I’m surprised no one brought it up as a warning.

]]>