|
Probably everyone here knows the premise and that it stars, was partially written by, and co-directed by Ricky Gervais. And that it's gotten mediocre reviews. In general I agree with the mixed reviews of the movie. It really feels like it needs a couple more drafts and some more jokes inserted, especially towards the latter part of the movie. On the flip side, there were many laughs and one absolutely hilarious bit about 30% of the way in that had me in tears - the screenplay pitch. Overall, it reminded me of Bruce Almighty -- not only in general theme and storyline, both of which it follows closely, but the feeling that there was much more comedy potential that wasn't sufficiently taken advantage of, despite a couple really big belly laughs. At full price it's definitely not worth it, but if you can get in to a cheap matinee or wait for the second run theater to carry it, I think it's worth seeing in the theater. 2.5/5, rounded up I spose.
|
# ? Oct 6, 2009 07:47 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 22:58 |
|
regulargonzalez posted:the feeling that there was much more comedy potential that wasn't sufficiently taken advantage of This is what I kept thinking the whole time. I hated the movie. It came off as smug and in-your-face the whole time while remaining terribly predictable and woefully unfunny. I just thought that the idea itself has potential to be turned into a decent comedy, but I mean did they really need to spend half the movie trying to make a point about religion? The other "blurt out whatever I'm thinking without being prompted" jokes weren't funny or clever at all. I think with more subtlety and taking out the whole man in the sky bullshit it could've been an alright movie. 1/5 menpoop fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Oct 8, 2009 |
# ? Oct 8, 2009 15:42 |
|
edit: sorry, that was discussion and not review.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2009 20:56 |
|
The comedy was a full step toward inaccessible. Ricky Garvais is funny but it's mock-serious tone and mock-serious motif's didnt really make it all that good. Plus the plot dragged. It had it's moments, but they were few and far between. Seeing the stain glassed window in "the quiet place" with him holding the pizza-box tablets elicited a truely belly belch of a laugh, i haven't laughed that hard in a long time, but this was the exception. 2/5, if you really like british humor, maybe 2.5/3
|
# ? Nov 2, 2009 09:31 |
|
I really like Ricky Gervais, but the movie itself wasn't very good. I think the first 30min are funny just because you're seeing this other way of life really. People blurt out what they are thinking because for them to think it and not say it would be a form of lying. I'm glad they tried to do something with the plot because a 90min movie of nothing but that would have gotten old, I just wish the whole religion bit wasn't it. I get it Ricky, you're an atheist and you think religious people are idiots. The podcasts have shown it (and really beat the drum to death in the last couple) and now you have a whole movie to do it with. I'm not a religious person myself, but I'm almost insulted because of how badly this movie is thrown together. It smacks of a 15 year old kid who has decided he's an atheist, knows everything, and mocks anyone different. Just because the writing is a little smarter doesn't make it much better. I agree about some of the funny scenes like reading the new rules and the stained glass window but there was too much "I'm smart, you're stupid" and not enough good movie. 2/5
|
# ? Dec 27, 2009 23:10 |
|
This was Ricky Gervais at his absolute works. The film was paced very poorly, had low intensity humor - some of which was only vaguely humor if you subscribe to the dry and long joke - and the substance, the narrative, was absymal. the part of the film that was supposed to be the funniest, with Gervais holding the pizza boxes of 'commandments' in statue-form, it was just loving stupid. Absolute waste of an hour and a half, unless you are doing a filmographic study of Ricky Gervais, and need something balance out his generally great work with the bbc Office. .5/5
|
# ? Jan 11, 2010 04:43 |
|
I didn't think this movie was as bad as others did. I do think that it could have had more humor and toned down the religious aspects, but as a whole, I'd give it 2.5/5
|
# ? Jan 26, 2010 17:10 |
|
I'd give this movie a 2.5/5. It was half uninspired romantic comedy, and half straight-out comedy about a wacky concept. For the romantic comedy half, pretty much every romantic comedy cliche showed up (boy loves girl, girl thinks of him as friend and dates douchebag, girl eventually realizes she loves boy. I don't think I need to spoiler that part). Plus, apparently what women want is "good genetic material" in a mate, as long as that material results in good-looking children? Done properly there could be some potential in a movie where the female romantic lead always blurts out the truth, but this part completely fell flat, especially given the complete absence of romantic spark and the fact that when we hear her inner thoughts, Jennifer Garner's character isn't actually that attractive. Unfortunately the pure comedy half wasn't particularly well developed either. There just weren't enough genuine laughs. I actually found Ricky Gervais' character's invention of religion to be the funniest part of the movie, and a rather cutting (if obvious) satire, especially when the crowd acknowledges that hey, if the man in the sky really does make bad stuff happen, he's kind of an rear end in a top hat. But instead of taking this idea and running with it, the movie assumes we care about whether Ricky Gervais and Jennifer Garner get together. I, for one, didn't, but the movie kept wasting time on the trite romantic comedy aspect. There was a funny cameo (Edward Norton as the cop who is sexually aroused by beating up Louis C.K.'s character), but this doesn't compensate for a movie that was painfully short of laughs.
|
# ? Jan 27, 2010 06:13 |
|
I guess the wife and I are the only ones that liked this movie. Expected a comedy, came away touched. What we expected to be a silly movie turned around and went and brought tears to our eyes here and there, all while getting us to smile every so often. It was touching, it was funny, it was smart, and it was a fantastic date movie. 5/5, see it with somebody you love.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2010 07:17 |
|
Labratio posted:I guess the wife and I are the only ones that liked this movie. Expected a comedy, came away touched. What we expected to be a silly movie turned around and went and brought tears to our eyes here and there, all while getting us to smile every so often. It was touching, it was funny, it was smart, and it was a fantastic date movie. 5/5, see it with somebody you love. You're not alone, I caught this a few nights ago on TV and it was an unexpected surprise. I wouldn't give it 5 stars but there were solid laughs and was tight enough that I never felt bored. My only issue was that they couldn't seem to decide on whether the premise should be about people who can't lie or people who speak their minds at all times. 3/5
|
# ? Jul 21, 2010 00:19 |
|
I caught this on TV last night and loved it. Some of the really dry jokes were hilarious for me, especially A Sad Place Where Old People Come to Die as a nursing home. The religious bits didn't really seem smug to me. In contrast I found it a clever statement of an atheist admitting that religion does in fact serve a good purpose. On the other hand I didn't really find the female lead very good, and she kinda detracted from the experience. 3.5/5
|
# ? Jul 22, 2010 05:12 |
|
Also saw this on HBO and liked it. It's not a great movie, or a great comedy or anything, but it's got an interesting premise that it explores in a few interesting ways. There was a lot of potential for this movie and it doesn't really live up to any of it but despite myself I found this movie to be an engaging and occasionally funny way to spend an hour and a half. 3/5
|
# ? Jul 30, 2010 21:08 |
|
This might have made a funny SNL skit or 22 minute sitcom episode, but the comedic possibilities were rung out of the first ten or so minutes of this dish cloth. Most of the actors are decent, but here appear to be cashing cheques, particularly Philip Hoffman and Jennifer Garner, who's hot but sort of resembles a sentient sex doll. Not that the script would lead you to believe she was anything less polyurethane--look, I dig Ricky Gervais and his schtick, but this smacks to holy hell of evo-psych horse pucky, and I heard enough of that in the university cafetorium. His job is making me laugh. Invention of Lying is about as funny as palmoplantar keratoderma (look it up).
|
# ? Sep 2, 2010 21:21 |
|
I loved the movie. I enjoyed the smug one liners. "A Sad Place for Hopeless Old People" had me chuckling for days. Maybe I just have a sick sense of humor. I would have given this movie a 4/5, but I give it the full 5/5 just for including Louis CK and having CK get beat up by Edward Norton who is playing a cop that gets sexually aroused by beating up civilians.
KelJu fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Sep 3, 2010 |
# ? Sep 3, 2010 14:29 |
|
The best part was that it wasn't two hours long. 2.5/5
|
# ? Sep 13, 2010 04:56 |
|
This movie was just loving awful! I love Ricky Gervais and this movie just let me down on so many levels. He was just not funny at all! The movie wasn't funny! One scene, when his mother is dying and he uses his genetic ability to lie in this too 'open-mouth-insert-foot' society to let her know she would be okay and go to a great place, etc. - you get the picture. I was touched, but I watched this movie to lift my spirits and make me laugh and it ended with me developing sour stomach. And Jennifer Garner was just a self-centered bitch, and I usually like her work, as well. The only character I found somewhat amusing was Rob Lowe. He did make me laugh a few times. What an rear end in a top hat - but it was what I expected him to be. I hate it when a film advertising one thing and delivers another. And please don't preach to me. There's a church within a mile of just about anyone for that, or take your pick. Heck, in some places they have weekly discuss groups for atheists to discuss and learn more about whatever floats their boat - humanism, whatever. As expensive as movies are, I want to be entertained. Plain and simple. This did not deliver. 1/5, and I'm being generous.
|
# ? Oct 8, 2010 10:46 |
People who can only tell the truth = people who can only dole out unending insults ad nauseum. Frankly, I don't understand it. The writing should have been much more clever with a premise this funny. The scene where he keeps telling his buddy he is black, an astronaut, etc is hilarious... that makes sense... having everyone insult him all the time is annoying and unfunny. In a world where only the truth is being told, people cannot come up with anything truthful to say that is nice as well? They just pick on him for no good reason even though he is an affable guy. If someone is better looking, they call him ugly... is that truth? How can a person you call ugly be called gorgeous by another? The "truths" were all relative, or singularly truthful to the individual, and that makes no sense. One person might say a sock was blue, the other green, because each believes that is the case... and they may both be wrong. Instead of saying everyone cannot lie, they should have said everyone says what they are thinking without feeling bad about it, that's closer in line with this film. Just cause you think it, doesn't make it "truth". This script required much more work and care, but if watching people insult Ricky's height, weight, and looks for 2 hours is your idea of fun, then by all means, watch it. Also, it was preachier than Jesus Camp. The secret? The "invention of lying" is religion, at least that is what I came away with. That is fine, but they make sure to pound it into your brain for over an hour, at least. What could have been a 10 minute string of jokes turned into the entire plot and drowned out everything else. 1.5/5 for a few key, funny scenes. Not much else though.
|
|
# ? Jan 26, 2011 18:17 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 22:58 |
|
The first 10 minutes are promising, the rest of the film is abysmal. The story takes place in a world where nobody tells lies or even understands the concept and this is used to some humorous advantage in the conversations people hold with each other, especially Ricky's date with an attractive but shallow Jennifer Garner. Eventually Ricky discovers he can lie and the humour pretty much stops there. The romantic sub-plot is horrifying; average man meets and tries to woo alpha girl who is searching for an alpha man that is a good genetic match. Alpha girl is consistently shallow and boring but very attractive therefore average man professes his undying I can imagine scriptwriters Gervais and Matt Robinson getting all excited over the premise of a world where nobody tells lies and then running out of steam after the first 10 pages. More likely that they got bogged down with trying to juggle the even handed criticisms of religion/atheism rather than focusing on more laughs. Note: if you thought this film was an atheist anthem then you really need to watch it again, no matter how painful that may be for you. Watching it again would be painful. 2/5 macdonal hamborkles fucked around with this message at 22:14 on May 10, 2011 |
# ? May 10, 2011 22:08 |