One of the things I hate most about modern cinema is when good premises are wasted on bad movies. I mean, it's one thing when a bad movie is made about something inane, like Monte Carlo or Birdemic, but seeing an idea with genuine potential is turned into an ineffectual suck-fest, it truly breaks my heart. Recent examples of this include The Adjustment Bureau, Sucker Punch, and, more recently 30 Minutes or Less.
You can be forgiven for not even knowing this movie exists, as the only reason I knew was from a late-night MTV advert that showcased all the funniest moments of the movie into a one minute timer. The movie centers around Jesse Eisenberg playing "lovable" slacker, Nick, and- Wait. Stop. I don't usually find something to complain about this early. Okay, I really dislike Jesse Eisenberg, but even I have to admit, he plays the obnoxious douche-bag very well. It's too bad that's the only thing he plays well. 30 Minutes or Less seems to be trying to make him seem likable, but he's clearly not comfortable in the role. He comes off like less of a lovable slacker and more like what would happen if Mark Zuckerberg from The Social Network started smoking a lot of cheap weed.
Anyway, another slacker, played by Danny "I Am A Funny Stoner Please Laugh At Me" McBride, who I honestly cannot tell if the movie wants me to like, needs money to order a hit on his dad, so he straps a bomb to Nick's chest, and tells Nick that he will explode if he doesn't rob a bank. This first act comes across very, very weak, mainly because the purpose of a first act is to tell me who I'm rooting for, and I honestly cannot tell who the good guys are in this movie. I'm fairly sure it's supposed to be Nick and his Indian friend, Chet, played by Aziz Ansari (who turns in a downright awful performance as the Indian version of Ken Jeong's character from The Hangover), but this really falls rather flat. McBride and his buddy get almost as much screen time and are only portrayed as slightly less sympathetic.
Also, I don't think this should bother me as much as it does, but the story has no defined three act structure. One would think that the payoff to this movie's dramatic question would be the bank robbery, right? Wrong. The bank robbery just kind of happens, and we're left with about half a movie of McBride screaming, "Give me the money!" and Eisenberg screaming "Take the bomb off, first!" I've legitimately never seen a movie that can have such a long third act and yet no third act at all. Nothing in the movie has any closure! It just ends. The lives of two major characters and two minor characters are left completely in limbo. I don't believe I have ever seen an ending quite so dissatisfying.
I could go on about the absurdly short, under 90 minute runtime that still leaves the movie feeling about thirty minutes too long, or about how none of the actors in the whole thing feel like they're enjoying themselves, or even about the shameless lack of effort put into the effort by director of dubious value, Reuben Fleischer, of Zombieland fame, but I really don't think you need any less reason to watch this movie. It's already getting murdered at the box office by other movies that no one really cares that much about, so it'll probably just be shoved in to the armpit of cinema's annals alongside Miss March, Sex Drive, and all the other uninspired R-rated comedies.
I'm not going to say it was humorless. There were a few scenes that made me crack a smile, but they really only serve to piss me off, because all the funny parts served to do was remind me of much better movies, which you should rent for half the price. However, if you're absolutely adamant about wanting to see a comedy about people with bombs attached to their chests, I've got good news for you. Go OnDemand and look up Four Lions. It's downright hilarious in a dark, nervous laughter kind of way. Give the tripe that is 30 Minutes or Less the shaft it deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment