GAME NIGHT
Alrighty then, so I just watched Game Night and holy ****, am I pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie. I think that I can speak for a lot of people when I say that when I first saw the initial trailers for this movie coming out, I thought it was just going to be one of your run-of-the-mill dumb comedies...Like your Meet the Fockers, or your 4 Christmases, or Couples Retreat. You know I thought it was going to be like one of those movies, not to say that those movies are bad which - I mean, come on they are kinda bad - but what I mean is is that I thought this movie was gonna be really cliche, have a lot of contrived conflicts, be really hokey, but I am shocked by how much I liked this movie.
First things first, the direction in Game Night was so good. This is really the core strength of the film, in my opinion. The first thing that I got surprised by was just how good this movie looked. Throughout the entirety of the film I was really impressed by how good some of the shot composition was, in terms of of course cinematogrophy, there were a lot of really visually pleasing shots along throughout the runtime. There were a handful of pretty creative shots using things like a Jenga set too. Everything looked really crisp, and professional, and I really got the vibe that the directors of this movie John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein just really gave a **** about this entire project, which is super refreshing because come on, how many hack directors are working in Hollywood right now?
Just to continue on with how much I liked the directing, I loved the use of the establishing shots in this movie. At first, I was a little caught off guard by how unreal they looked in comparison to how clean and crisp all the other shots and scenes were, but I quickly realized that the way they presented these establishing shots were very intentional and purposefully done to make it look as though it was a board game...and although I will admit that it was a little distracting at times, I do appreciate the creative and artistic vision that went into employing those shots. They took a risk and I liked that.
I enjoyed the camerawork that the directors used as well, for the most part, it was very dynamic and kept things interesting on a visual level. I would just like to compare this to the vast majority of comedies nowadays, where almost every single scene is just 1, maybe 2 cameras that are completely static and shot so conventionally and uncreatively that I always end up getting bored. Even comedies that I would say that I really enjoy like Bridesmaids and Superbad have this issue. Game Night does this really well. Whether it be a really slow zoom on a character during a dialogue, or slow pan to help the audience understand the positioning of the characters in relation to the set, I think the directors did a pretty solid job at keeping things really engaging. There is a scene in this movie that is done in one take, that is so much fun. Soooo much fun, and I really don’t think that most comedy directors, a vast majority of comedy directors nowadays can even hope to have the skill to direct the scene that I’m talking about right now. It’s all 1 shot, and it’s so captivating and mesmerizing, and it uses the camera and the characters so ****in well.
Last quick thing about the directing, there were a lot of quick-cut transitions that fit really well into the narrative littered throughout the first half of the movie. It reminded me a lot of Edgar Wright films where instead of just cutting to the next scene abruptly, he gives us something dynamic and interesting to help us segue into the next part of the movie. The directors of this movie, Game Night, did something similar to this a couple of times, however, worse than Edgar Wright does for sure. But nonetheless, it added a level of technical ability to the film which I am without a doubt on board for. It just made things more fun to watch. Admittedly this isn’t like a make or break aspect of Game Night, but I thought it would be fair to point out.
So that’s it for the directing...it was a really well directed movie guys, I’m impressed.
I thought the script was strong too. I think that the script was pretty evenly paced, for the most part. I didn’t find myself drifting off throughout the movie up until the 3rd act, which we’ll get into in a bit. There were a couple self-aware moments in the dialogue that I really appreciated because if they didn’t address them I would’ve found myself rolling my eyes at how cheesy some points got, but I’m glad the script had enough maturity to make a joke out of the cheese. And I found those self-aware moments funny so you know 2 birds, 1 stone.
The humor definitely landed well for me, although I’ll admit that this type of awkward and outlandish comedy is pretty up my alley but despite that I think that there’s a good enough variety of jokes to keep most people laughing. There’s an outright stupid character in this movie, who, in most other comedies I would probably hate because I usually dislike characters who are dumb just for the sake of being funny. But the actor who plays him, Billy Magnussen does such a good job making his character very stupid yes, but also very likable and charming, and I guess this is a good example of getting a good actor, with good directors in this case, with a good script and creating a good character even though they’re cliche.
Just piggybacking off of that, I do think that the performances were pretty good for the most part. I do think that the actors were blessed to have a solid script with good dialogue and some funny jokes for sure, but a good script can’t create chemistry, and I think that this cast has some good chemistry together, which makes sense, seeing as they are all very capable actors in their own right, Jason Bateman, Rachel McAdams, Lamorne Morris, they’re all good.
Now of course this movie isn’t perfect, so let me go ahead and get into some of the things that it didn’t do so well.
I felt like the 3rd act was a bit of cluster****. Something that I really liked about he first 2 acts of the film was that it never really felt toooo outrageous even though it’s a movie where you definitely need to suspend your disbelief to get he most out of it. But the 3rd act had a couple of plot beats happen where I felt like they made things a little bit too big. A little too sensational, for a movie that I feel like really shines when things were more on the grounded side. At the end of the movie we start having a couple of pretty big action sequences that I didn’t really find too interesting and I definitely didn’t think that they were too necessary in the grand scheme of the movie. Like yes, on a plot level, these things had to happen, because you know it was written in the script. But what I mean is is that I felt like i would have enjoyed the ending a lot more if they kept the plot as relatively grounded as the earlier parts of the movie.
I never really felt like the side conflict going on between Jason Bateman’s character and Rachel McAdams character ever really felt that genuine, which matter because as the film goes on the script wants it to be a pretty big deal. However, I just never really ended up caring all that much. And I guess I liked the idea behind it kinda, but just execution wise I don’t think they wrote it well enough.
Moreover, I wasn’t too much of a fan of the actual action sequences that they put into the movie. Whether it be a car chase or a fight scene, I never really got too into it, I kinda found myself just waiting for these scenes to end so that the characters could start interacting again because the characters are strong and they’re fun to watch. It’s almost ironic that in a movie that utilizes large action set pieces, I kinda just wanted them to end.
There was at least one scene in the movie where a character was supposed to be crying tears and it was kind of a piss poor effort put into it. Like they didn’t even try to make it look like they were actually crying, but you know what, based off the overall tone of the movie, there is a part of me that feels like that might have been on purpose to not have this character sobbing on screen. However, despite that, I do feel like if you’re going to include a scene with a character crying, you should have them cry, or you should just write in something different. That’s a small criticism though, very minor.
Ummm, there was a moment where the sound mixing was really bad.
That’s basically it though, I did not outright dislike too much about this movie.
Overall, I I feel the same way about Game Night as I did leaving Horrible Bosses. For both movies, I walked into them blind, not knowing too much about the plots at all. And I left both movies feeling really, really pleasantly surprised and happy that I saw them. I will say though that I think Game Night is a much better movie, not only on a subjective enjoyment level, but on a technical filmmaking level as well.
I know that I’m talking it up very highly but that’s only because I’m so genuinely surprised that this movie is...good! Like, I’m just surprised that it’s good period. I was expecting just another cookie-cutter comedy and what I got instead was a smart, self-aware, visually appealing, technically sound movie, that I think anyone can enjoy.
I really wanted to be able to give this movie a 7/10, which is a very good grade for me, just for your own reference I gave Spider-Man: Homecoming from last year a 7/10. However, the 3rd act in Game Night was just a little too hokey for me, and I’m sad to say that it brought down my overall enjoyment of the film as a result. And because of that, I’m giving Game Night a 6/10.
Reply to Topic