Starsky and Hutch (review)

[davywavy]

Once again, Hollywood has pressed the well-thumbed buttons marked 'Remake of popular old series', 'postmodern but affectionate comedy', and 'star vehicle for Ben Stiller*', and the Scriptotron 3000 writing machine has ground gears, emitted a cloud of black, oily smoke, and then produced the script for Starsky and Hutch.
If you've seen the 80's remake of 'Dragnet', then you've seen Starsky and Hutch, only Dragnet is funnier. Seriously; Starsky & Hutch watches like they took the dragnet script, filed the serial numbers off and then took the best jokes out.
So we have: Voiceover opening by obsessive policeman - Check! Amusing partnership of slobbish mifit and obsessive by the book type - Check! Extended sequence of 'comedy' as straight-laced character takes drugs with 'hilarious' results - Check! Villain posing as philanthropist to cover his evil schemes - check! Riotous sequence as mismatched duo stage a drugs raid on the wrong premises with...wait for it...hilarious results - Check!
God knows, it takes real effort to insult my intelligence. I have sat through Highlander II with barely a murmur, but Highlander II is watchable in a mangled-body-after-car-wreck kind of way. Starsky & Hutch is an instantly forgettable nothing of a film, nothing new, no good jokes, nothing unpredictable to spoil the diligently laboured 'gags'. It's not funny. It's not enjoyable. It's not original. It isn't even Bad. It's just there.
That's what I find most insulting about it - I like my entertainment soulless and mass-produced, but Hollywood has finally produced something so bland and pointless that even I have to be irritated.
It is the cinematic equivalent of McDonalds; not nutricious, not nice, but not really nasty either. Just mechanically produced nothing that can be sold at a profit to saps who think that a good marketing campaign means a good product.

^{*Who wasn't funny the first time, and isn't now.}

Comments

Ben Stiller

[arralethe.livejournal.com]

While I'm *really* not a Ben Stiller fan, I must admit I was pleasantly amused by both "Mystery Men" and "Zoolander".

"Mystery Men" benefits from Geoffrey Rush as the villain of the piece, so you can pretty much ignore Stiller happening to be on set at any time.

"Zoolander" had some moderately amusing moments, and David Bowie is always watchable.

Otherwise, I avoid Stiller films like the plague, and will be treating S&H like the senile old auntie at a wedding.

Re: Ben Stiller

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Like the senile auntie, S&H dribbles and smells of wee.
For a night at the cinema, Lost in Translation is a good alternative due to making one think as opposed to actively discouraging one to do so.

Re: Ben Stiller

[arralethe.livejournal.com]

Well, and of course, Bill Murray can
a) Act; and
b) Is a comedian

In much the same way that Stiller isn't.

Re: Ben Stiller

[godzuki.livejournal.com]

Sure Lost in Translation makes you think, and its a very good movie for exploring the notion of culture shock and if you like, holday romances...love in various ages et al.

But as much as you might smirk in places and feel superior to the whacky japanese, its not a comedy, or even funny most of the time.

Re: Ben Stiller

[arralethe.livejournal.com]

It's not slapstick, no, but it's very bittersweet, with a surprisingly healthy sense of irony: and playing that kind of role actually requires enough talent to make it believeable.

After all, I think that on the whole Donnie Darko is a drama with comedy aspects, but it still makes me cry.

Re: Ben Stiller

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Really? Donie Darko irritated the crap out of me, but I know lots of people (especially ones of the female persuasion) really liked it.

Re: Ben Stiller

[godzuki.livejournal.com]

I found Darko a great movie, it had a wonderful surreal quality that worked really well with the extremely dark edge to the film, making it feel like a horribly catostrophic movie with eventually turned out to be for the main character.

Again very sad..it didnt fall into the trap of not making sense for the sake of it.

Re: Ben Stiller

[godzuki.livejournal.com]

I wont say the movie wasnt clever, thought provoking and so on, and yes it was genuinely amusing, if not laugh out loud funny - but there is room for a medium between this kind of thing and slapstick ;)

Mostly the film was rather sad, very slow paced with manic interludes, it worked very well.

Personally I do rate stiller as a comedy actor, In Zoolander and Mystery men he was great! I think the same is true of S&H, but I do agree it loses some of its pace mid stream, its by no means perfect, still enjoyable though.

[godzuki.livejournal.com]

Hmm maybe you just hadnt had enough sex that day?

I quite liked the movie, admiteddly i did have a few drinks beforehand to prep myself for hollywood comedy mode, and it was utterly formulaic, but the jokes worked for me, the 70s nostalgia-o-tron was rightly configured and frankly it did have some damn funny moments.

You are just doing your scrooge mcDuck impression. ;)

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I don't know if that first line is supposed to be an offer...

I didn't think much of what few jokes there were. It just didn't have anything to capture the attention. Certainly the first film in a very long time I've considered walking out of, I was so bored.

[godzuki.livejournal.com]

LOL. No david, it definitely was not.

My point is that ones mood affects how one sees this kinda light comedy, I happened to like it cos I was in a good mood and didnt approach it with a cynical attitude.

Actually, its more like - I find anyway - if I expect a film to be crap, I usually enjoy it, and vice versa.