Viewed: In theatre
Release Date: June 20, 2008
writer: Tom J. Astle and Matt Ember
director: Peter Segal
The Sunday prior to this film's theatrical release I spent about a half hour slouched on the couch, remote in hand, with my carpal-tunnel-inflamed thumb hovering over the "recall" button (you know, the one that takes you back to the previous channel you were on?). On AMC (acronym for "American Movie Classics", a station name which is only 2/3rds correct) was the year 2000 production The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle, while simultaneously over on Showcase (a channel once known for it's artful and refined sense of international and independent movie selections) was the 2005 cinematic version of The Dukes of Hazzard. While my sense of good taste and comfort wouldn't let me watch either for any prolonged period of time, my sense of curiosity and fascination with the horrid had me flipping between the two films every two minutes or so.
I loved the original programs both films were based on when I was a kid, and the first thing a television-to-film adaptation will play upon is nostalgia. Of course it does, why wouldn't it. There's almost no other reason to be watching it, am I right? That is unless you're a bit of a masochist or genuinely intrigued by whatever the marketing department might have sold the film on (that wasn't nostalgia). Dukes, from what I saw, played out near exactly like an extended, big-budget version of the TV show (and the TV show was pretty horrendous). Rocky and Bullwinkle was a bizarre Roger-Rabbiting mash of animation and real world storytelling... about on the level of other such kiddie adaptations like Scoobie-Doo, Inspector Gadget and Underdog (I suppose, I like apparently everyone else on the continent, never saw the latter), which is to say not very good at all.
Release Date: June 20, 2008
writer: Tom J. Astle and Matt Ember
director: Peter Segal
The Sunday prior to this film's theatrical release I spent about a half hour slouched on the couch, remote in hand, with my carpal-tunnel-inflamed thumb hovering over the "recall" button (you know, the one that takes you back to the previous channel you were on?). On AMC (acronym for "American Movie Classics", a station name which is only 2/3rds correct) was the year 2000 production The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle, while simultaneously over on Showcase (a channel once known for it's artful and refined sense of international and independent movie selections) was the 2005 cinematic version of The Dukes of Hazzard. While my sense of good taste and comfort wouldn't let me watch either for any prolonged period of time, my sense of curiosity and fascination with the horrid had me flipping between the two films every two minutes or so.
I loved the original programs both films were based on when I was a kid, and the first thing a television-to-film adaptation will play upon is nostalgia. Of course it does, why wouldn't it. There's almost no other reason to be watching it, am I right? That is unless you're a bit of a masochist or genuinely intrigued by whatever the marketing department might have sold the film on (that wasn't nostalgia). Dukes, from what I saw, played out near exactly like an extended, big-budget version of the TV show (and the TV show was pretty horrendous). Rocky and Bullwinkle was a bizarre Roger-Rabbiting mash of animation and real world storytelling... about on the level of other such kiddie adaptations like Scoobie-Doo, Inspector Gadget and Underdog (I suppose, I like apparently everyone else on the continent, never saw the latter), which is to say not very good at all.
In the whole of TV-to-Movie transitions, very few have fared well at all. Does anyone count a TV-to-Film as an all-time favourite movie? Doubtful. TV and cinema are entirely two different beasts, two different ways of telling a story, two different means to developing characters and satisfying an audience. The challenges are far different, and so, really, attempting to capture the essence of a year-long, 2-year-long, 5-year, 10-year TV series in a 100-minute film is achievable, but an utterly shallow goal. Transitioning an episodic program to a stand-alone feature produces little of artistic merit, as these films ride solely upon modifying, stealing or paying homage to the hard (if generally mediocre) work of others, and the end result is a film that aspires to play upon or allude to fond memories in order to entertain. The Brady Bunch Movie led the wave, and was the first to start the trend of tongue-in-cheek presentation, more poking fun at the conventions, catch phrases and absurdities of the TV show than paying tribute to it. It worked, especially in placing a true-to-the-show version of the Bradies in a 1990's setting. The anachronistic angle has played out in other films as well, to lesser effect, but most movies try to modernize the TV show's concept, not realizing that most programs owe their successes to being in a right time or place, comedies even more so dating themselves soon after (or even well before) cancellation.
Get Smart doesn't deviate from the course it's fellow transitionaries have made. It's a modernization of an old TV show, as well as a film that inspires great waves of nostalgia for those of us that were fans of the original series (I'm obviously too young to remember it from original broadcast, but I did watch it daily as a pre-teen in the 1980's on YTV, and loved it). The difference with Get Smart is it doesn't dwell in nostalgia, it's not re-presenting a specific storyline from the show, and it's characters aren't intended to be direct facsimiles of the originals.
Steve Carrell is perfectly cast as Maxwell Smart, able to be dry and deadpan just as Don Adams was, and yet infuses his own sense of warmth, knowing, an wryness. While the old Max was a buffoon, here Max has his competencies, but also his clumsiness and insecurities. Anne Hathaway's Agent 99 is much harder-edged than the 99 of old, a super-spy rather than just Max's partner who always bails him out of trouble. The film also cleverly rationalizes the age difference, and Hathaway handles the character with a maturity well beyond her years. The cast is rounded out with Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson as a sidelined agent (a bit wasted in the role), Alan Arkin as the highly volatile chief, Terence Stamp as CHAOS top man, Sigfried, and Ken Davitian (best recalled as Borat's nude wrestling partner) as Sigfried's right-hand man. Each of these actors can jockey between competent and comedic on the drop of a hat, and do, without ever making the action or comedy seem out of place, the two integrating very well.
Super-spies, thanks to Sean Connery, were all the rage in the 1960's and Mel Brooks and Buck Henry created Max Smart as the antithesis of a super-agent, exploiting all the conventions of the spy genre at a very early stage, a way early predecessor of Austin Powers. This film is similarly motivated, lampooning spy films and conventions, but also becoming a genuine spy movie in the process. Director Segal turns back time, avoiding CGI at almost every turn, instead opting for practical effects wherever possible (and almost every sequence is set up so that it can be done without computer animation). It has the feel of a Roger Moore-era Bond film, which were as much action-comedy as this is.
I admit, I got a buzz seeing Max pass the CONTROL museum at the beginning of the film. One of those famous waves of nostalgia hit me and I couldn't control myself (no pun intended). The movie fully captures the nature Get Smart while forging it's own path without turning to the huge, over-the-top absurdist action that the Matrix has spawned, or otherwise deviating from the true spirit of the source. It might be a tough sell for a younger crowd needing Bourne-style quick-cut ADD editing and running down the sides of buildings, but the characters are genuine and the result is just plain fun. I would like more, and for a TV-to-Film translation, that's saying a lot.
Rating: 3.5/5
Get Smart doesn't deviate from the course it's fellow transitionaries have made. It's a modernization of an old TV show, as well as a film that inspires great waves of nostalgia for those of us that were fans of the original series (I'm obviously too young to remember it from original broadcast, but I did watch it daily as a pre-teen in the 1980's on YTV, and loved it). The difference with Get Smart is it doesn't dwell in nostalgia, it's not re-presenting a specific storyline from the show, and it's characters aren't intended to be direct facsimiles of the originals.
Steve Carrell is perfectly cast as Maxwell Smart, able to be dry and deadpan just as Don Adams was, and yet infuses his own sense of warmth, knowing, an wryness. While the old Max was a buffoon, here Max has his competencies, but also his clumsiness and insecurities. Anne Hathaway's Agent 99 is much harder-edged than the 99 of old, a super-spy rather than just Max's partner who always bails him out of trouble. The film also cleverly rationalizes the age difference, and Hathaway handles the character with a maturity well beyond her years. The cast is rounded out with Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson as a sidelined agent (a bit wasted in the role), Alan Arkin as the highly volatile chief, Terence Stamp as CHAOS top man, Sigfried, and Ken Davitian (best recalled as Borat's nude wrestling partner) as Sigfried's right-hand man. Each of these actors can jockey between competent and comedic on the drop of a hat, and do, without ever making the action or comedy seem out of place, the two integrating very well.
Super-spies, thanks to Sean Connery, were all the rage in the 1960's and Mel Brooks and Buck Henry created Max Smart as the antithesis of a super-agent, exploiting all the conventions of the spy genre at a very early stage, a way early predecessor of Austin Powers. This film is similarly motivated, lampooning spy films and conventions, but also becoming a genuine spy movie in the process. Director Segal turns back time, avoiding CGI at almost every turn, instead opting for practical effects wherever possible (and almost every sequence is set up so that it can be done without computer animation). It has the feel of a Roger Moore-era Bond film, which were as much action-comedy as this is.
I admit, I got a buzz seeing Max pass the CONTROL museum at the beginning of the film. One of those famous waves of nostalgia hit me and I couldn't control myself (no pun intended). The movie fully captures the nature Get Smart while forging it's own path without turning to the huge, over-the-top absurdist action that the Matrix has spawned, or otherwise deviating from the true spirit of the source. It might be a tough sell for a younger crowd needing Bourne-style quick-cut ADD editing and running down the sides of buildings, but the characters are genuine and the result is just plain fun. I would like more, and for a TV-to-Film translation, that's saying a lot.
Rating: 3.5/5