Just watched this film last night. Enjoyed it for its sense of style and silly fun and the cast and crew's commitment and talent in bringing it off. I'd give it particularly high marks for the production design and soundtrack/score. In all, a pleasure to watch and listen to.
And just this morning I read a few reviews of it published at the time of its release. All of them were generally tepid, which is unfortunate. It seems they wanted more in this comedy than laughs, which this film consistently gave me throughout. Yet, by my lights, this film, to go along with the laughs, had well enough heart and soul to not insult my intelligence.
Nor did I find the film as regressive on gender as some critics. The primary female characters, as played by Patricia Arquette and Katheryn Winnick, both struck me as independent agents of their own fortune. (Does Arquette suffer to play otherwise?) And the Swan character as played by Charlie Sheen is not pushed on us as a good man wronged by bad women. He may see it that way in his bouts of self-pity, but as the audience we are not asked to buy into that. On the contrary, the wisdom of his behavior, if only for his own sake, is questioned to his face throughout the film. In the end the Winnick character, Swan's love interest, tells him "thanks, but no thanks, I am moving on" and Swan is left to swallow it. So while he himself might be regressive on gender, the film isn't.
Lastly, let me repeat my praise for the film's production design and soundtrack/score, neither especially noted or praised nearly enough in the reviews I read. Which is simply poor work by the critics. Those are fundamental elements of film and any fair and good critic should treat them as such. Unfortunately, it seems bedrock filmmaking virtues take a back seat to too many critics feeling of whether or not the film gratified their worldview; all else goes by the wayside.
And who loses out? We do. I mean, how is it for the better that Liam Hayes has not a single composer or soundtrack credit since this film? Literally not believable.
And just this morning I read a few reviews of it published at the time of its release. All of them were generally tepid, which is unfortunate. It seems they wanted more in this comedy than laughs, which this film consistently gave me throughout. Yet, by my lights, this film, to go along with the laughs, had well enough heart and soul to not insult my intelligence.
Nor did I find the film as regressive on gender as some critics. The primary female characters, as played by Patricia Arquette and Katheryn Winnick, both struck me as independent agents of their own fortune. (Does Arquette suffer to play otherwise?) And the Swan character as played by Charlie Sheen is not pushed on us as a good man wronged by bad women. He may see it that way in his bouts of self-pity, but as the audience we are not asked to buy into that. On the contrary, the wisdom of his behavior, if only for his own sake, is questioned to his face throughout the film. In the end the Winnick character, Swan's love interest, tells him "thanks, but no thanks, I am moving on" and Swan is left to swallow it. So while he himself might be regressive on gender, the film isn't.
Lastly, let me repeat my praise for the film's production design and soundtrack/score, neither especially noted or praised nearly enough in the reviews I read. Which is simply poor work by the critics. Those are fundamental elements of film and any fair and good critic should treat them as such. Unfortunately, it seems bedrock filmmaking virtues take a back seat to too many critics feeling of whether or not the film gratified their worldview; all else goes by the wayside.
And who loses out? We do. I mean, how is it for the better that Liam Hayes has not a single composer or soundtrack credit since this film? Literally not believable.