'The Interview' Movie Review: Why The Fuss Over This Recycled Celebration of American Stupidity?
For weeks on end, the entire world has been subjected to email hacks, terrorist threats and arguments over creative expression and freedom.
Over what you ask? Over "The Interview," a colossal waste of time that clearly aims at nothing and overachieves in that respect.
For the uninformed, the film stars James Franco and Seth Rogen as a pair of yellow journalists who land an interview with North Korea's supreme leader Kim Jong-Un. The CIA promptly shows up at their doorstep and tells them to kill Jong-Un before he launches some nuclear weapons he has at his disposal. The two man-children initially shy away from the task, but persuaded by what one would expect a man-child to be persuaded by (sex), they agree to the task. And so ensues pandemonium.
The film gets off to an excruciatingly sloppy start with Rogan's "rational" Aaron Rapaport and Franco's Dave Skylark being used as mouthpieces for the idiocy of modern yellow journalism. There are jokes about "The Lord of the Rings," Matthew McConaughey, Eminem and others. A lot of them, mainly the homophobic ones, are in poor taste. The rest are simply not funny. Aaron gets annoyed that one of his former colleagues from school looks down upon his work and tries to convince Skylark to do more serious work. And then comes the pitch to interview Jong-Un.
Once the duo arrives in North Korea, screenwriter Dan Sterling tries to twist the audience around by showcasing a sympathetic portrayal of Jong-Un filled with a love for margaritas and Katy Perry. Meanwhile, the two start moving in different directions regarding their mission before more twists and turns abound.
At its best, the film recycles tropes and commentary that has been done before and better in other films ("Team America" anyone?). It does not add anything to the conversation that the world did not know despite some attempts at leveling the playing field. Did anyone never realize that America sticks its nose in the wrong places? Did anyone know that North Korea does not feed its people? Did anyone know that journalism in America is too focused on celebrities to be considered serious anymore? These are all the points that the film aims to bring up, but rarely without any prevailing new insights. Credit is due for the writing to not be as one-sided as anticipated as everyone in the film is ridiculed. But even the audience becomes subject to this ridicule if only because the movie highlights how stupid Americans (particularly millenial men) are, which is as offensive as this movie gets.
As would be expected from this kind of entertainment, fart and sex jokes are its main source for laughter. And most of the time, it is not funny. The plot twists are predictable, further undercutting any possibilities that "The Interview" had of being remotely interesting or engaging. There is the cliched bromance narrative that moves through all the similar beats, almost as if check-marking them in the process. The two men are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Then they unite. Then their disagreements come to the fore. Then they eventually make up. And when one is disappointed in the end, he still has his best bud there to make it all better. Structured, but boring.
And a shout out must also be made to the silly montages that litter the film as clear filler for a lack of better transitions. At one point, there is a five-second montage of a "crazy" night Aaron and Dave have that amounts to the reductive behaviors Hollywood feel best illustrate a party (drinking in a club, quick cutting, scantly clad women and strobe lighting). There is admittedly a nice touch in recycling these images (as unoriginal as they are) to juxtapose the Dave-Aaron relationship with the Dave-Jong-Un relationship. But it also comes off as a rather lazy. Can't man-children bond over something new for once that isn't sex, drinks, strobe-lights or drugs (there are barely any in this film)? Not only are the images interchangeable with other countless movies featuring Rogen (the far superior "Neighbors," for example), but they are so brief that they often come off as after-thoughts.
And for all the talk of sex and other innuendos (and the never-ending objectification of women), the film shies away from actual portrayals for most of its running time. There is one brief sex scene, but for the most part, it is simply all talk.
James Franco plays Skylark with such exaggeration that it almost becomes unbearable to watch at times. It is obvious that he cannot be taken seriously, but it bothers to the point of distraction. His mannerisms are off the charts. His voice is annoying (it does not help that he gets horrid dialogue to spew).
Seth Rogen plays the same role he has played for most of his career (let's hope the new Jobs movie changes that). Anyone that has seen his work knows that there will be a moment where he starts screaming at the top of his lungs in exasperation. His wide-eyed look is overused. If you want to see the traditional Seth Rogen performance in a decent film this year, watch "Neighbors."
Randall Park might give the best performance of the film as Kim Jong-Un. At least here there is a seeming attempt at portraying the hated dictator with some humanity. But as to be expected, the twists will eventually make him regress into the stereotypical portrayal everyone expects.
People who enjoy the fart jokes, man-children, homophobic slurs, stereotypes, cliches and objectifying women will probably get a kick out of "The Interview." But those wondering what the big fuss is all about will probably leave their respective viewing experience wondering why they wasted their time in the first place.
Subscribe to Latin Post!
Sign up for our free newsletter for the Latest coverage!