Skip to main content

Going in Style tries to Prove that Old People Are Funny


          Going in Style is one of the most unexpected remakes in recent memory. The original 1979 comedy starring George Burns, Art Carney, and Lee Strasberg, has been forgotten by most except evidently for Zach Braff (yeah, the guy from Scrubs) who directed this modern version. But is a story about three old men undertaking a heist worthy of two movies?
          Senior citizen Joe (Michael Caine) witnesses a robbery during an unpleasant bank appointment about his mortgage. Later when the company he used to work for is bought out, and the restructuring process cancels his pension, he recruits his friends and fellow victims Willie (Morgan Freeman) and Albert (Alan Arkin) to plan a bank robbery of their own and get back the money they rightfully deserve.
          Having never seen the original I can’t comment on how this new movie compares, but this plot is pretty paper thin. It’s exactly what you’d expect in both direction and tone. There are decent character moments, such as when we see Joe or Willie bond with their grandchildren, and a couple moments that are played seriously towards the end, but generally the story’s path always leads back to the central joke of “three old guys committing a robbery”. Most of the comedy is in service of that and it doesn’t take long for it to get tiring. There are only a small handful of laughs in this film, and that’s because the novelty of old men trying to steal from a grocery store, trying weed for the first time, or just all round moving slowly isn’t as funny as the filmmakers think. A movie can’t get by an old people jokes anymore. On the contrary, the excess focus on age can on be a little depressing at times. I don’t like to hear greats like Caine, Freeman, and Arkin predicting when they’re going to die.The writing is not that smart, and the direction isn’t in anyway comically unique. And the humour also plays really safe, remaining largely predictable and inoffensive. There are exceptions of course, the occasional delivery from one of the leads, and at least one great physical joke. The funniest material comes from Christopher Lloyd who plays one of their lodge friends who has severe dementia, but even those jokes are mostly one-note. Lloyd just happens to be able to make them entertaining. 
          Really there are only three things this movie has going for it and they are Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Alan Arkin. They’re all great legends of actors and though comedy is none of their biggest strengths (except perhaps for Arkin), they’re good enough and their chemistry is strong enough that they hold your attention. There’s a very believable friendship between them and that’s the films’ backbone. None of their characters are that well defined, apart from the roles these three usually play of late. Caine is disgruntled but passionate, Arkin is sarcastic and cynical, and Freeman is essentially the same guy as in The Bucket List and Last Vegas (this is also his sixth time in a film alongside Caine). But you sympathize with these guys for the horrible system that’s screwing them over. And for that there is some investment in the success of their heist. Overall they are enjoyable, and seeing as they’re on screen almost the whole movie, they distract from the major problems that would’ve sunk this film had it been cast with lesser actors. The supporting cast do a good job too for what it’s worth. From John Ortiz as their guide to mass theft, to Ann-Margret (who looks just like she did twenty years ago) as Alberts’ love interest; Joey King as Joe’s granddaughter, Peter Serafinowicz as her drug selling father, and a surprising Matt Dillon as an FBI agent.
          Going in Style is technically not a good movie. It has way too little substance and lacklustre comedy that relies far too much on the same kind of jokes. But it is harmless and cute, and is in no way as insulting as other movies currently in theatres. Caine, Freeman, and Arkin carry the lesser material and make for a more enjoyable time than this kind of movie deserves. To be honest, it’s a perfectly good movie to take your parents or grandparents to. They might get some enjoyment out of this set-up and the light comedy, as well as the actors. It’s definitely not worth the full price of admission, but if you were interested by the trailer, it delivers more or less exactly on that. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more