*

*

Cinema 101: How *Not* To Make a Screwball Comedy

Author: TJ McCarthy from United States
28 April 2009
 

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A lot of the negative reviews here concentrate on the historical accuracy of this film. OK, it had about as much to do with the actual NFL as your average war movie has to do with an actual war, or a Western has to do with the true "old west". So, I think we should give them an artistic license pass on that one.

The problem here is, the director (Clooney) apparently thinks that making a screwball comedy means a) do stupid things, b) mug for the camera, and c) take stupid scenes full of mugging and stretch them out way too long. Screwball comedies need a fast pace, not necessarily frenetic, but moving briskly along at all times. Here, things drag, and drag, and drag. After you watch this movie, it will make you appreciate how brilliant Mack Sennett was when he pretty much pioneered the genre with his Keystone Cops. After 90 years, you would think that directors would have studied the old masters and learned a thing or two, maybe even improved on things a bit. But no, it's as if someone had watched an automobile pioneer build a Duesenberg, and nearly a century later, paid homage and "improved" on the concept by cobbling together a child's wagon with square wheels.

I've enjoyed several of Clooney's movies, I consider him a gifted actor. But very few actors can competently direct themselves; Clint Eastwood notably took a while to get the hang of it. Clooney is clearly at the bottom of a very steep slope. The movie becomes more watchable during the very few times he is out of the frame, but when he's in the picture, he makes himself the centre of attention. In the fight scenes, his mugging is so obnoxious you wish somebody would thump him for real.

If you are making a screwball comedy and want some romance thrown in, you need to develop some chemistry between the male and female leads. Clooney and Zellweger have all the chemistry of pair of dumpsters sitting in a parking lot. No spark, no sizzle, not even a post-mortem twitch. Zellweger, who has also turned out some pretty good movies, must have traded her botox injections for oak tannin, giving a stunningly wooden performance. She might just have pulled off the "tough broad in a man's world" act if just once, while trying to out-testosterone the guys, she had looked into the camera with a little half-smile and twinkle in her eye. But no, she kept her jockstrap cinched up tight to the very end.

Of course, the biggest sin here is that the movie simply isn't funny. Doing stupid things is not the same as slapstick. Doing stupid things very inventively, like the Stooges, or very athletically, like Buster Keaton, can be hilarious. But otherwise it's boring and, well, stupid. I think I got one good laugh out of the entire movie.

Avoid this one. I saw it for free on cable, and still wanted my money back.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Longest 2 hours of my life

Author: Corinna_Bella from Australia
6 May 2009

I was surprised to see the very generous rating on IMDb. This honestly is the worst film i have watched in my entire life. It was so slow and lifeless that i actually started making up other stories in my head to help make the time pass faster.

Im not a high maintenance film watcher - ill happily sit through the most basic Rom com to an espionage film with constant twists and turns, to ... well you get the picture. My tastes are well rounded and easy to please.

Renee looked like she had just sucked on a lemon in every scene. Her accent was terrible and acting worse. Im a huge fan of Bridget Jones and its tongue in cheek humour and her good portrait of the character so had some expectations (not particularly high) of how this movie would be. It didn't even deliver on those moderate expectations.

If you have nothing to do this afternoon i suggest you save your $10 and watch paint dry or something equally more exciting than sitting through this film

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Give this a wide berth

Author: paul (micewillplay) from Wales UK
10 June 2009

This movie is absolutely awful. I suffered over an hour of this brain numbing rubbish thinking to myself it will get better. well guess what..it didn't!!! Even if you see this free of charge don't take it! It's like water torture. The acting is... well what acting is all I can say. I have given it one out of ten out of pure sympathy. Is it me or is George Clooney completely overrated, admittedly he has made one or two good movies but on a whole. I bought this movie as I like sports movies especially ones with a decent storyline, so you can imagine how disappointing it was to find out what a mistake I had made. I have seen the scathing reviews for Radio (Cuba Gooding Jr)but that looks like an academy winner compared to Leatherheads.

11 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

Painfully Tedious

Author: mcjohnnyb from United States
5 April 2008

Let me preface this by going on record, I am a huge George Clooney fan, and I love John Krasinski in 'The Office'. Well, I was and I did.

This was the world's worst hang nail and it took 113 minutes to rip it off. The stupefying boredom was interrupted only by my frequent efforts to read my watch and estimate when it would be over.

Every funny scene was in the previews. All three of them. There was no real story, no character development, and the script was just plain bad. I've had a colonoscopy that was more enjoyable.

The title should have been SuperDuper Bad. This movie is a lock for a Razzie. It should get a whole slough of Razzies. I want my money back.

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Just a waste of time, a major disappointment

Author: mikebesant from United Kingdom
15 April 2008

I went to the cinema with high expectations of seeing something a little different from the normal fare. An old fashioned screwball comedy with a stellar cast. What a major disappointment. What a waste of talent. This movie was just tedious. nothing interesting happened. The cast really looked like that they were working hard to make something of the non-plot and comedic script which forgot the comedy. This was a real shame. On the plus side the movie looked great with atmospheric colours and the crowd scenes looked sensational. It also benefited from an excellent soundtrack. But I did not care for any of the characters. Clearly when this was being pitched there was a contrived effort to intertwine several stories creating tension and humour with the potential for love conquering all. At the end of the day, this was a mess. Without wishing to sound like some professional "out of new ideas", they should have spent some more time and money on the script and a little less on the impressive, but ultimately wasted, special effects. Go spend Your money on something else.

6 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

I didn't like it at all...

Author: FireFL5 from United States
13 April 2008

Normally I so enjoy the actors in this movie...could not believe how bad it was. What a disappointment!The comedy was so slapstick and the story line so predictable....not to mention the acting just wasn't that good. Two of the three stars played their "typical" roles ...while the others were respectable performances. The historical time was well referenced...that is the most positive thing I can say about this film. We almost walked out it was so boring. I didn't hear any positive comments at the end from anyone else in the audience either. We were almost out the door when the "wedding" scene came up on the screen. I am afraid many will not see it as they will be in a hurry to get out the door. Like I said...we were very disappointed in the film...and to be honest....George C....since he was the director and star. I know he would understand since he played quarterback in a lot of the film...they get the glory if you win and the negatives if you lose. I am afraid he lost with this film!

8 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Dreadful from start to finish

Author: robertallenandersonjr from United States
22 April 2008

Leatherheads was a very boring movie from the very beginning. I had a hard time staying in the theatre for the whole movie. This is a movie where you mostly hate it or love it and I strongly didn't like it. I thought the acting was very good and they were fun to watch for older people. I guess I mostly didn't like it because I am younger. It was just way to slow moving and never picked up. The messages were saying its okay to cheat and lie. George Clooney was just a cheater the whole movie when he played football and never changed. The whole movie had like about three laughs. The laughs they did have were small. I mostly didn't like how it took place in the 1920's. It was very real and shows you how football really started. The romance was very confusing and pretty boring. Everyone in this movie was very selfish and wanted everything for themselves. The story was pretty much not even about football. It revolved around war and other stuff. One more thing is that the whole movie was all sarcasm. So if you like sarcasm you will probably like this movie. Overall this movie was very boring and a waste of money.

9 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

I sat there like a stone ...

Author: DSStarsiak from United States
11 April 2008

I thought this movie was going to be good. It absolutely wasn't, despite the Oscar-winning lead actors. I may have laughed once, and I never heard anybody else in the theater laughing. Renee Zellweger's pancake make-up was very unbecoming. Everybody seems to be trying so hard in this movie, running around in imitation of slapstick but not pulling it off. I think perhaps the movie must've sounded good in development, but something got lost in translation. Were the roaring 20's really like this? I think not. Everything seems a tad artificial. Randy Newman's score was annoying. The film is in sepia tones, just like every other movie that takes place in the 20's or 30's. There's just not that much originality here.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

George belongs behind the camera

Author: govendsa from South Africa
26 December 2008

I thought I give this movie a try for no apparent reason other than the video store didn't have any nice movies left. I'm not a fan of George Clooney or Rene Zellweger but I decided to give it a shot and now would like a refund. I tried sitting through the first 15 minutes but was so bored that I opted to do housework instead and I hate housework. There's no chemistry between any of the cast. George is looking his age, what almost in his fifties and so is Rene. She doesn't look all that good. I think this movie would have being better if George played a talent scout instead of one of the players. He just didn't fit the role. Rene was miscast. John was about okay. As usual there's absolutely NO chemistry between Clooney and the leading lady. The man should really consider staying behind the camera and maybe even getting some lessons on directing but he should really quit acting and leave it to the fresh and upcoming actors like Chace Crawford, Shia Labeouf and start acting his age and stop wishing that he was in the league of his other co-stars like Pitt, Damon etc.

7 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Leatherheads-Reel Geezers

Author: hfgirl from United States
6 April 2008

Check out the two octogenarians who review Leatherheads. These guys are old-school Hollywood and a hit on YouTube. They always give an insightful and fun review. They have movie comparisons that are really interesting and they have a banter back and forth that is endlessly entertaining. They know movies, collectively they have been in the biz for practically a century. Lorenzo is a well-known screenwriter and Marcia is a famous producer. All of their insight on movies always leaves you with something to think about. See what they think about Clooney's latest...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-W7evBEArs