A simple favour

gmisk

I couldn't see a thread on this film.
So thought I would open one, I saw it this morning... It is in a word... Bonkers.
Parts of it are a thriller, parts are a comedy the tone is absolutely insane, I found it a bizarrely compelling mess.
Probably best treated as a dark comedy.

JeffKenna

Very poor movie. First time in a while I've seen people leave the cinema early.

pixelburp

Most of the chatter turned up in the "What Have You Watched..." thread; will c&p my own thoughts anyway

To describe this film as having an inconsistent tone is like saying the Sun is known to be a little hot. It was so erratic , I'm not even sure what the exact intention of this film was: pastiche? Satire? Homage? Or just a genuine attempt at a domestic crime drama? Even within a single scene, there were jarring & sudden swings between Paul Feig's trademark, quasi-improvisational comedy, and boilerplate erotic thriller tropes from the 'Gone Girl' mould, played with an entirely straight face. Neither approach ever lasted long enough to let me reason that, OK, this was definitely either a comedy or thriller, and it culminated in a last act - and plot resolution - that was 100% pure slapstick gags. The audience burst out laughing, myself included, but to be honest it was more out of disbelief than the raw comedy of the moment.

Now, to be fair, I was never once bored: the pace was tight; the plot intriguing in its own right; and the two female leads gave it their all, performances landing somewhere between enthusiastic and scenery chewing. The retro, 60s soundtrack and styling gave it some panache as well, but - that tone. I swear to god it's the first film to have given me whiplash, those changes were so abrupt.

LLMMLL

I thought it was good. I’ve never really understood the “it didn’t stick to one particular genre” type criticisms of films. Seemed to me to be a darkly comic pisstake of gone girl/girl on a train type stories. The only moment that seemed out of place to me was the single father guy in the car at the very end. That humour didnt work at all.

gmisk

LLMMLL wrote: »

I thought it was good. I’ve never really understood the “it didn’t stick to one particular genre” type criticisms of films. Seemed to me to be a darkly comic pisstake of gone girl/girl on a train type stories. The only moment that seemed out of place to me was the single father guy in the car at the very end. That humour didnt work at all.

I dont mind something covering multiple genres if it is done well.
I thought the mark kermode review was pretty spot on.

pixelburp

It wasn't about sticking with one genre, it was about making the two mesh naturally; the drama scenes were played pretty straight and never gave any sense of winking, but then would gearshift suddenly into comedy - and even the humour couldn't settle on whether it was just improvisational, or full-on slapstick.

LLMMLL

gmisk wrote: »

I dont mind something covering multiple genres if it is done well.
I thought the mark kermode review was pretty spot on.

It’s a bit of a weird one because he’s basically saying it’s fine to genre switch but heavily implying that it’s not.

I think he’s completely wrong on the constant tonal shifts. It all seemed pretty clear to me. I knew nothing about the film going in. I thought it was going to be about two different types of mothers going to war. There’s never a “romcom” element as he claims and I’m quite surprised to hear him even allude to romcom in relation to the first part of the movie.

Then it shifts to a gone girl/girl on a train/wild things kind of film and stays like that until the end.

Like I said the single dad in the car at the end but was a weird broad comedy moment but that’s about it.

pixelburp

LLMMLL wrote: »

It’s a bit of a weird one because he’s basically saying it’s fine to genre switch but heavily implying that it’s not.

I think he’s completely wrong on the constant tonal shifts. It all seemed pretty clear to me. I knew nothing about the film going in. I thought it was going to be about two different types of mothers going to war. There’s never a “romcom” element as he claims and I’m quite surprised to hear him even allude to romcom in relation to the first part of the movie.

Then it shifts to a gone girl/girl on a train/wild things kind of film and stays like that until the end.

Like I said the single dad in the car at the end but was a weird broad comedy moment but that’s about it.

Ah there kinda was a romcom angle:

the middle act(s) teased out a relationship between the Kendrick's character and the widower, played initially as illicit but then the character committing to this new normal.

.

And with the tonal whiplash you had scenes such

as at the old family home, Kendrick's character meeting the doddery old mother via lying at the door, learning some shocking truths - only for the scene to end with a gag as the groundskeeper ordered a sweater.

It was fcsking weird. Entertaining! But all over the shop.

LLMMLL

pixelburp wrote: »

Ah there kinda was a romcom angle:

the middle act(s) teased out a relationship between the Kendrick's character and the widower, played initially as illicit but then the character committing to this new normal.

.

And with the tonal whiplash you had scenes such

as at the old family home, Kendrick's character meeting the doddery old mother via lying at the door, learning some shocking truths - only for the scene to end with a gag as the groundskeeper ordered a sweater.

It was fcsking weird. Entertaining! But all over the shop.

I mean there was a semi-romance in the middle and the whole movie had darkly comic elements but I don’t think you could conceivably call that middle part a romcom. Also with the clip he played centring on the two women talking he seemed to think that two women talking about their lives makes something a romcom. From someone who just did a series on genres I find it extremely odd.

I agree that it was a mishmash of genres as exemplified by the scene you’re talking about with the groundskeeper. But it was a fairly consistent mishmash.