|
★☆☆☆☆
27 August 2012
This article is a review of A FEW BEST MEN. |
“I couldn’t lose you if you were a suitcase at Terminal 5.”
Oh dear oh dear. Maybe someone saw THE HANGOVERS and BRIDESMAIDS and thought, ‘Yeah, we can do the same, kerching!’? The first quote-un-quote, gag, is the bland lead, David, slipping on some dog mess; seriously, that’s the level the filmmakers are aiming at? Jokes then misfire at a ridiculous rate. It’s a very long time before a laugh is squeezed out of me. Probably over half way. Just in case you were wondering, A FEW BEST MEN is meant to be a comedy.
Oh dear oh dear. Maybe someone saw THE HANGOVERS and BRIDESMAIDS and thought, ‘Yeah, we can do the same, kerching!’? The first quote-un-quote, gag, is the bland lead, David, slipping on some dog mess; seriously, that’s the level the filmmakers are aiming at? Jokes then misfire at a ridiculous rate. It’s a very long time before a laugh is squeezed out of me. Probably over half way. Just in case you were wondering, A FEW BEST MEN is meant to be a comedy.
|
|
We’re primarily in the company of four witless, charisma-less, alleged friends. I say alleged, because it looks like they’ve just met each other there is so little bond between them. David encounters Mia on holiday, and they decide to get married after 10 days. He’s from London, she’s an Aussie. They’re going to tie the knot at her wealthy father’s home. David is joined by BFF Tom (Kris Marshall), Luke and Graham (Kevin Bishop). It seems that Tom is meant to be the brash Bradley Cooper equivalent, and Graham is the odd-bod Zach Galifianakis representative. Luke is a non-character, just sitting/laying around moping after having been dumped. It is so depressing to watch the group dynamics. The casting of Rebel Wilson as Mia’s sister is like a lonely comedy beacon shining out. Though the makers don’t appear to look to her for guidance.
I find it hard to believe A FEW BEST MEN is from the director THE ADVENTURES OF PRISCILLA, QUEEN OF THE DESERT and EASY VIRTUE. Both pictures have a sophistication and an eye for character. Why is Stephan Elliott involved? Though this is from the writer of the lumpen DEATH AT A FUNERAL, which perhaps says much.
There are banal hijinks involving a sheep, drugs, etc. Only the best man’s speech has real guffaws. Then if we haven’t suffered enough, sentimentality of the everyone-learns-a-lesson-variety is ladled on thick, to make the experience more excruciating.
|
|
