Dustin: 3 of 5 stars Nick: 3 of 5 stars Average: 3 of 5 stars (Woozy canary)
Dustin: ‘Murican Ultra is a spy thriller/stoner comedy genre mashup. The plot echoes Doug Liman’s The Bourne Identity, but set in the fictional backwoods of Liman, West Virginia. Mike (Jesse Eisenberg) is a CIA “asset” who has been trained to brutally murder people with everyday objects. ‘Topher Grace is a yuppie agent bent on killing Mike for no reason other than he’s a “security risk.” Mike and his girlfriend Phoebe (Kristen Stewart) are on the run from the CIA as the government wantonly kills every American citizen who in the area.
Nick: American Ultra is a lively film that can be considered an amalgamation of all other films of the same genre. While not being nearly as good as it could have been, Eisenberg and Stewart are enjoyable to watch as the stoner lovers who just want to leave town together (Harold and Kumar). The two main actors had great chemistry, and I couldn’t shake the idea that this was a sequel to Adventureland.
Dustin: This basically followed the same premise as The Bourne Identity. They are both about an “asset” or “agent” suffering from a fictional mental condition (a form of amnesia in Bourne that acts as a kind of factory-reset for his brain, and mental programming in American Ultra). Both are being hunted by the CIA while they are running blind with no understanding of what’s happening to them.
The way other critics are discussing American Ultra is a lot like how I see the Bourne movies. Unlikely plots with CIA assassins being graphically killed off with everyday items. I liked American Ultra as a parody of Bourne, but I wish they would have committed to that idea a little better.
Nick: That seems to be the general consensus. The film tries a bit of everything, but never commits to any genre. This never bothered me, though I do admit it could have been a lot of better if it did so. The film has been getting many negative reviews with the average reviewer saying it was uneven and the characters one-dimensional. I think these people weren’t aware that American Ultra is more of a comedy, and in comedies characters are often one dimensional. It’s normally something that isn’t brought up when discussing comedies, but is the one constant I found when reading other reviews. As in all comedies I’m able to let it slide if I’m enjoying myself, and I did that and more. I had a great time, but I know comedies are often the most disagreed upon films between viewers because we all have our own brand of humor. Sandler!!!
Dustin: I didn’t think this movie was uneven. It established a tone and pretty much stuck with it. But if this was supposed to work as a Bourne parody, there wasn’t much indicating that. I think most people would miss the name of the fictional town was from the director of the first Bourne movie (I’m not counting the ‘80s TV movie). I’m still not sure if we saw a spoof or homage. I would have liked a little more wink-wink-nudge that they were doing a Bourne parody, the way the Austin Powers movies brilliantly satire the Bond films.
Nick: The secondary characters were pretty useless beyond Walton Goggins and John Leguizamo. Goggins as the arsassin (arsonist/assassin) and Leguizamo as the drug/firework dealer are the reason the film kept in the realm of comedy when the other characters were so bland and played it straight. Topher Grace, Connie Britton and Bill Pullman could have been played by less recognizable faces considering the lack of depth they had to achieve. I love seeing all three of these actors, but the parts would have been better served if they were somewhat more comedic or in the film less or not at all. More than anything I love seeing Tony Hale, and his comedic scenes were perfect, but he was also an unnecessary piece in this jumbled puzzle of pointlessness.
Dustin: The movie did well as a comedy. Most of the jokes landed, but I admit I was bored during the expository scenes. That could have to do with the one-dimensionality of the characters, or just that it all felt a little too familiar, being a Bourne identical.
Nick: I actually love the Bourne trilogy because of the action and the characters, and I think it led to the revitalization of the Bond series as their action is more parkour and all the characters are more well-rounded. I would never argue that they show a realistic side to spycraft or someone suffering amnesia, but they did all the other facets to a certain degree that caring about truth seems ridiculous these days when talking about a Hollywood film franchise. I would of course rather have it be as real as possible, but then that would upset the fan base of the books, which I’ve heard are as close as they come to being a true adaptation. Damn you I Am Legend!!!
Nick: That seems to be the general consensus. The film tries a bit of everything, but never commits to any genre. This never bothered me, though I do admit it could have been a lot of better if it did so. The film has been getting many negative reviews with the average reviewer saying it was uneven and the characters one-dimensional. I think these people weren’t aware that American Ultra is more of a comedy, and in comedies characters are often one dimensional. It’s normally something that isn’t brought up when discussing comedies, but is the one constant I found when reading other reviews. As in all comedies I’m able to let it slide if I’m enjoying myself, and I did that and more. I had a great time, but I know comedies are often the most disagreed upon films between viewers because we all have our own brand of humor. Sandler!!!
Dustin: I didn’t think this movie was uneven. It established a tone and pretty much stuck with it. But if this was supposed to work as a Bourne parody, there wasn’t much indicating that. I think most people would miss the name of the fictional town was from the director of the first Bourne movie (I’m not counting the ‘80s TV movie). I’m still not sure if we saw a spoof or homage. I would have liked a little more wink-wink-nudge that they were doing a Bourne parody, the way the Austin Powers movies brilliantly satire the Bond films.
Nick: The secondary characters were pretty useless beyond Walton Goggins and John Leguizamo. Goggins as the arsassin (arsonist/assassin) and Leguizamo as the drug/firework dealer are the reason the film kept in the realm of comedy when the other characters were so bland and played it straight. Topher Grace, Connie Britton and Bill Pullman could have been played by less recognizable faces considering the lack of depth they had to achieve. I love seeing all three of these actors, but the parts would have been better served if they were somewhat more comedic or in the film less or not at all. More than anything I love seeing Tony Hale, and his comedic scenes were perfect, but he was also an unnecessary piece in this jumbled puzzle of pointlessness.
Dustin: The movie did well as a comedy. Most of the jokes landed, but I admit I was bored during the expository scenes. That could have to do with the one-dimensionality of the characters, or just that it all felt a little too familiar, being a Bourne identical.
Nick: I actually love the Bourne trilogy because of the action and the characters, and I think it led to the revitalization of the Bond series as their action is more parkour and all the characters are more well-rounded. I would never argue that they show a realistic side to spycraft or someone suffering amnesia, but they did all the other facets to a certain degree that caring about truth seems ridiculous these days when talking about a Hollywood film franchise. I would of course rather have it be as real as possible, but then that would upset the fan base of the books, which I’ve heard are as close as they come to being a true adaptation. Damn you I Am Legend!!!
Dustin: The Bourne books and movies are nothing alike. They just share titles and the basic premise of a former assassin who has amnesia. The first book had a fun premise, and they do well creating an atmosphere. But the second two are worthless lumps of concrete. To the movies’ credit, they are actually better than the books.
Nick: The last thing I’ll say is that I hated the first scene! I closed my eyes and refused to watch. It shows the entire film in a quick flashback starting with Eisenberg in jail as he remembers what led him to this point. It’s a useless gimmick that is there because it looks cool, but adds absolutely nothing to the story. Are we not already in the theater because we are curious as to what happens so we don’t need a quick trailer in the film before we see the movie? It did make me think of the time I went to a brand new theater to see A Million Ways to Die in the West and they played the trailer for the movie before the show started! That is hopefully a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment