'Ronseal - quick drying wood stain. It does exactly what it says on the tin'. And that basically sums up Hot Tub Time Machine. Like Snakes on a Plane before it, it really is a Ronseal of a movie. I've got to be honest, it is a very good title, and it's probably up there with some of the best attention grabbers in cinema history, but having seen it, I suspect it came out of the womb as a just that, a title, and perhaps the merest hint of an idea, but never really matured beyond the playpen in which in continues to sit.
The storyline, four middle aged mates, going back in time (via said hot tub) and having to relive a weekend in the 80's in their teenage bodies, clearly owes a lot to Back to the Future, but Great Scott, it lacks all of the heart, subtlety, charm and humour of the classic that we all know and love. It starts off well enough, introducing the chaps we will be spending the next 90 minutes with, all at various degrees of happiness in their 40's, then joining them on a ski trip as they try to relive their youth. One boozy night in a bubbling bath and they get exactly that but not as they expected.
It's an interesting idea - what would we do if we really had to go back to those early, care free years and live them all over again, coupled with the undoubted nostalgic humour of 80's fashion, trends and music. It's a shame then that Sean Anders and Josh Heald didn't actually take any time or care into attempting to think of any jokes, but then what might you expect from the pens that brought you Sex Drive and Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay?
As soon as they are transported back I was led to think I was on to a winner with some good visual gags (clothes and haircuts) and the characters realising that they were all a bunch of tools in their youth. There is also a collection of cameos from Chevy Chase which is a good little pro-80's touch. That glimmer of hope lasts for only about 5 minutes and we soon resort to type, sex jokes, puking, gay jibes and Chase becomes both pointless and hugely irritating. That's it. It also has the indecency to attempt to patronise the viewer with the usual time travel plot (must not change history and get to midnight) only to not bother to stick to it, and at times forget about it's existence all together. Am I meant to actually give a toss whether they deviate of not? Whats the worst that could happen? The DVD disappear into thin air?
The pity with it is that they've convinced John Cusack to be involved, along with Clark Duke and Craig Robinson, who are all funny in their own right but are only given tiny glimpses to show it. While Back to the Future had characters we instantly liked, a well structured and layered plot (that continued for two other films interwoven with one another) and an innocent, subtle yet chirpy humour throughout despite themes of sex (and even incest!), Hot Tub is like it's smutty, perverted, younger sibling - it should have learnt the lessons from it's older brother's impeccable behaviour but is too ignorant and immature to bother.
By the end of the film, the writers seem to remember that there is an audience involved in the whole cinema process and start to write some actual jokes and a romantic sub plot involving Lizzy Caplan (doing a decent job). It all comes together with a comparatively 'nice' ending with some good gags about Cold War paranoia and alternative realities. This only managed to aggravate me even more, a great title, a good idea, some chuckles to begin with, even some laughs at the end. So why all the utter tosh and tripe in the middle?
Don't be tempted by the title, it's all a waste of time, barely passable as comedy, and doesn't deserve your attention. You'd be much better served watching some wood stain drying. It doesn't even have to be quick drying.....
About Me
- Ollie Miney
- Lover of all things film, ready to tell you what to avoid, and more importantly, what to seek out.
Showing posts with label John Cusack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Cusack. Show all posts
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
2012 (2009)
Sunday night in, cooked paella, burnt my finger in the process (got an obscene blister on my left index finger to prove it), watched Spurs get a glorious last minute winner against Liverpool. What next? I entrusted my evening's entertainment in the Movie channels and was served up Roland Emmerich's latest attempt at destroying the planet, 2012. Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, Godzilla, Universal Soldier, Stargate. Surely I would be in safe hands.
Emmerich doesn't waste much time, with his writing or setting up the plot, as we are thrown straight into the problem facing planet earth. An Indian scientist discovers that solar flares are going to turn the core of the earth into free-flowing, magma which will destabilise the Earth's crust. Some scientific mumbo jumbo is spouted, and then Emmerich moves on to meeting the characters, satisfied that he has done enough to convince the viewer of what is happening.
The characters are the usual, generic, stereotypical people that these films always tend to throw up with relationships that are broken or need to be renewed. A father who doesn't do enough for his kids, a young scientist who just wants to make a different, blah, blah, blah.
So, tragedy explained, people to be affected are introduced, problems to be resolved, stop me if you've seen this before.
Having said that, when I settled down to watch this, I wasn't doing so because I thought I might get an interesting character piece acted out in sonnets or rhyming couplets. No, I knew I was going to get to see our planet destroyed, and was therefore getting a bit twitchy with all this exposition. 'Come on Roland, blow something up'.
And he did. A limo chase through California as buildings and freeways collapse, gaping chasms open up with lorries and people falling to their death, explosions, fire, it's all there. Bit more plot, bit of family interaction acted out in a wooden manner. Then we have a giant super volcano, this time involving a camper van narrowly avoiding a plummet into the Earth's core. Bit more talking. Then Vegas gets destroyed while, guess what, a plane just manages to escape before it's too late. Honestly, how many times can the same people, in different vehicles just manage to survive and be the last people to get out of a scrape alive? Wheels just managing to avoid a crack, just manage to squeak under a collapsing road, just manage to turn the engines on in time to regain altitude.
Perhaps I'm being too fussy. The effects do look good, but so did the effects in The Day After Tomorrow, and in all of his other films. How about something new, something fresh? Roland, can you here me? Oh sorry, you're in the process of rendering a tidal wave to kill the president.
I know what you're thinking, 'Come on Ollie, what did you expect?', and you're right, why should he do something fresh, all those films have made money, this one made a killing too, but how about having an action movie with a bit of depth? This film must have one of the largest death counts ever, but not once do we ever feel sadness, or emotion at the loss of life. One character loses her husband, and stepfather to her children, in one of the final scenes, then minutes later she is kissing some other bloke. 'What about Gordon'? you ask. 'Who's Gordon?'
I better mention the cast, I suppose, if only to say that they should know better than this. John Cusack, Danny Glover, Thandie Newton, Woody Harrelson, Oliver Platt. Come on people. They must have got some decent money, which I do not begrudge them, but at some point during the shoot, surely someone could have stood up and suggested that one or two lines be subjected to a re-write. And here's a tip, if you are going to cast someone as a Russian, perhaps it would be good to audition for people who are able to do Russian accents, or if that's a stretch, how about an actual Russian person?
It's two hours 30 minutes long, an overblown, saggy film with some nonsense plot which alludes to the Bible, used to try and blow more stuff up along the way, as it propels towards a 'moral of the story' ending that has all the emotional impact of a soggy piece of origami.
However, people want to see these films, the box office supports that, and it is fun, in a totally disposable way, like Super Noodles, it does a job but you can't say your remotely satisfied afterwards. Wouldn't it be nice if we weren't treated as complete idiots though and given something with a bit more flesh on the bones. Otherwise, it could be the end of the cinema world....
Emmerich doesn't waste much time, with his writing or setting up the plot, as we are thrown straight into the problem facing planet earth. An Indian scientist discovers that solar flares are going to turn the core of the earth into free-flowing, magma which will destabilise the Earth's crust. Some scientific mumbo jumbo is spouted, and then Emmerich moves on to meeting the characters, satisfied that he has done enough to convince the viewer of what is happening.
The characters are the usual, generic, stereotypical people that these films always tend to throw up with relationships that are broken or need to be renewed. A father who doesn't do enough for his kids, a young scientist who just wants to make a different, blah, blah, blah.
So, tragedy explained, people to be affected are introduced, problems to be resolved, stop me if you've seen this before.
Having said that, when I settled down to watch this, I wasn't doing so because I thought I might get an interesting character piece acted out in sonnets or rhyming couplets. No, I knew I was going to get to see our planet destroyed, and was therefore getting a bit twitchy with all this exposition. 'Come on Roland, blow something up'.
And he did. A limo chase through California as buildings and freeways collapse, gaping chasms open up with lorries and people falling to their death, explosions, fire, it's all there. Bit more plot, bit of family interaction acted out in a wooden manner. Then we have a giant super volcano, this time involving a camper van narrowly avoiding a plummet into the Earth's core. Bit more talking. Then Vegas gets destroyed while, guess what, a plane just manages to escape before it's too late. Honestly, how many times can the same people, in different vehicles just manage to survive and be the last people to get out of a scrape alive? Wheels just managing to avoid a crack, just manage to squeak under a collapsing road, just manage to turn the engines on in time to regain altitude.
Perhaps I'm being too fussy. The effects do look good, but so did the effects in The Day After Tomorrow, and in all of his other films. How about something new, something fresh? Roland, can you here me? Oh sorry, you're in the process of rendering a tidal wave to kill the president.
I know what you're thinking, 'Come on Ollie, what did you expect?', and you're right, why should he do something fresh, all those films have made money, this one made a killing too, but how about having an action movie with a bit of depth? This film must have one of the largest death counts ever, but not once do we ever feel sadness, or emotion at the loss of life. One character loses her husband, and stepfather to her children, in one of the final scenes, then minutes later she is kissing some other bloke. 'What about Gordon'? you ask. 'Who's Gordon?'
I better mention the cast, I suppose, if only to say that they should know better than this. John Cusack, Danny Glover, Thandie Newton, Woody Harrelson, Oliver Platt. Come on people. They must have got some decent money, which I do not begrudge them, but at some point during the shoot, surely someone could have stood up and suggested that one or two lines be subjected to a re-write. And here's a tip, if you are going to cast someone as a Russian, perhaps it would be good to audition for people who are able to do Russian accents, or if that's a stretch, how about an actual Russian person?
It's two hours 30 minutes long, an overblown, saggy film with some nonsense plot which alludes to the Bible, used to try and blow more stuff up along the way, as it propels towards a 'moral of the story' ending that has all the emotional impact of a soggy piece of origami.
However, people want to see these films, the box office supports that, and it is fun, in a totally disposable way, like Super Noodles, it does a job but you can't say your remotely satisfied afterwards. Wouldn't it be nice if we weren't treated as complete idiots though and given something with a bit more flesh on the bones. Otherwise, it could be the end of the cinema world....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)