Even Jon Hamm, who’s normally dead-on in his comic timing, is left high-and-dry here. Some of his lines, particularly an exchange with Gadot about Chili’s, are cringe-worthy, because you can tell Hamm’s smart enough to know none of the material is funny. As for the action scenes, they’re clearly staged by people with no eye (or resources) for action, and not the least bit memorable.
Again, KEEPING UP WITH THE JONESES is packed with talent, so why is it so bad?
The only upside is that no one involved will suffer much from its failure, as it seems doomed to a quick death at the box office – something which is probably the best for all involved.
http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/review-keeping-up-with-the-joneses-297-02
Again, KEEPING UP WITH THE JONESES is packed with talent, so why is it so bad?
The only upside is that no one involved will suffer much from its failure, as it seems doomed to a quick death at the box office – something which is probably the best for all involved.
http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/review-keeping-up-with-the-joneses-297-02
.... the presence of Jon Hamm as a man of mystery prompts wistful memories of “Mad Men....The absence of laughs can’t be blamed on a lack of talent. The movie’s utilitarian construction and non-igniting star chemistry are a surprise from this director....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/movies/keeping-up-with-the-joneses-reviewIt’s a bloody shame that a man as effortlessly debonair in a suit as Jon Hamm should be relegated to playing a joke spy in a merely genial comedy that aims for baseline competence, and no higher. Hamm does his best to carry the bulk of “Keeping Up With the Joneses” on the strength of his considerable charm......
It’s a tired formula...The doesn’t make it 10 minutes without deploying a poop joke (one of several....So that’s a bummer. What isn’t are the performances, especially Hamm as a soulful international man of mystery lending a touch of gravitas to what is otherwise a flighty affair.
It’s not enough to make “Keeping Up With the Joneses” a standout entry in the spy-comedy category, but it does elevate it to the sort of movie you’d do well to watch one day when you’re sick on the couch and too lazy to reach for the remote.
http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/formulaic-keeping-up-with-the-joneses
Despite a fun premise, Keeping Up with the Joneses is a mildly entertaining comedy that’s very generic.
One of the biggest letdowns in the movie is the screenplay by Michael LeSieur, which takes way too long to kick into gearNone of the performances in the main ensemble are exactly groundbreaking, but the standouts are arguably Galifianakis and Hamm.........As stated above, his scenes with Hamm are somewhat entertaining, giving the movie an odd couple pairing that (at times too on-the-nose) pokes fun at their vast differences. Tim is perhaps the character with the most “depth,” providing Hamm with a variety of material with which to work. He does a good job with the action sequences, and Hamm elevates what’s on the page to make Tim a sincere figure.
http://screenrant.com/keeping-up-with-the-joneses-movie-reviews/
The real shame is that Hamm shows signs that he would be very good in a traditional spy movie.
Not that you should ever know that.Instead, you should focus on keeping away from “Keeping Up With the Joneses.”
http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/columns-blogs/christopher-lawrence/spy-comedy
Galifianakis and Hamm are better than the material here, but they do what good actors in okay movies are supposed to do, they make it rise to them.
“Keeping Up with the Joneses” won’t change the neighborhood, but it’s worth popping in on.http://www.detroitnews.com/entertainment/
Sporting a slimmed-down look that makes him resemble a perpetually panicked Greg Kinnear, Galifianakis reins in the excesses of his usual oddball persona to winning effect, earning solid chuckles with a constant stream of throwaway lines, several of which were surely ad-libbed. Hamm has proven form as both a dramatic and comedic actor and he's a lot of fun here, while Fisher brings appealing comic energy to her role as Karen. By contrast, Gadot might have glamour to spare and convince in the action sequences but she's rather wooden when it comes to chemistry and comic timing, which doesn't bode well for Wonder Woman.
Though the car chase and shoot-out scenes are nicely handled, it's fair to say that a couple of the comedy set-pieces fall painfully flat, most notably a misguided attempt at lesbian frisson in a lingerie changing room. In fact, the film is at its strongest when exploring the unexpectedly touching bond between Galifianakis and Hamm's characters, though it stops short of doing anything interesting or challenging with that idea, opting to play it safe instead.
https://film.list.co.uk/article/85545-keeping-up-with-the-joneses/Keeping Up” has a wonderful cast—but what it doesn’t have is a comedic cast, with the exception, of course, of Zach Galifianakis. His teammates, Isla Fisher, Gal Gadot, and Jon Hamm, are excellent actors, not excellent comedians.
....Hamm is breezy and charming; he does much of his work with his eyebrows, and his voice even seems to have its own eyebrows. Because there’s not a lot of energy emanating from Hamm in repose; Mottola keeps him moving, at least facially. Gadot is regally crafty, and Fisher is frenetically alert, but neither they nor Hamm have the highest comedic gifts of incongruity, impulse, and surprise
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/keeping-up-with-the-joneses
Instead, we get a weak action comedy that pushes and strains, that's never really funny and never exciting. In an ideal construction, the comedy heightens the tension, and the tension sets up the comedy. In "Keeping Up With the Jones," the reverse happens. The (attempted) laughs are tainted by violence, and the violence is undercut by silliness.
http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-features/article/Review-Keeping-Up-With-the-JonesLight on big laughs, entirely predictable and almost completely forgotten five minutes after you leave the theater, Keeping Up With The Joneses can’t really keep up with much of anything that matters. Of course, a rather dumb comedy like this will inevitably hit its marks every now and then, and most of that is thanks to a game cast who do their best with slight material
the whole thing seems awfully thin and recycled from better movies. Hamm fares best here, realizing the best results from playing the comedy straight and not straining for reaction. Galifianakis has some nice moments, particularly in an exotic snake restaurant Tim takes him to eat at, and he plays well against Fisher whose character is asked to do stupid things like don a disguise to follow Natalie around. Gadot is the new Wonder Woman but I don’t get that comedy is her strong suit — though she isn’t given much to do in that department except look amazing, which she does accomplish.
Originally this film was to be released earlier in the year, but it went back for reshoots to make it work better. It’s OK if you want a time-waster, but it doesn’t offer any real reason to rush out to the multiplex
http://deadline.com/2016/10/keeping-up-with-the-joneses-review-zack-galifianakisSadly, their latest collaboration, “Keeping Up with the Joneses,” has only a fraction of it. It is the sort of inoffensive comedy that fails to evoke any strong reaction — including laughter
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/21/movie-review-keeping-upIt’s easier to write mysterious, cypher-like characters, which is why the genetically blessed Hamm and Gadot seem so believably unbelievable
And thanks to its meta-casting, we nod our heads in admiration for Hamm’s refined style and mock Galifianakis’ self-deprecation. But that’s one too many goals for a single movie – enough to dabble, not enough to be memorable – and as a result, Keeping Up With the Joneses simply cannot keep up with the comedies it so clearly tries to imitatehttp://news.nationalpost.com/arts/movies/while-keeping-up-with-the-joneses
Only Hamm makes a man out of the thin character Michael LeSieur’s script provides. He plays Tim as a pained man who lives this undercover lifestyle simply because he loves his wife so much. His performance, especially alongside Fisher and Galifianakis, is exemplary of how comedy can be performed with emotional nuance, thereby being the film’s only redeeming feature. He makes the nonsense intelligible, no mugging or overworking of jokes required.
In fact, Hamm features in the few scenes that are legitimately funny and produce laughs that aren’t the obligatory chuckles after generic jokes (there’s also a brief, coldly received waterboarding reference somewhere along the way). In scenes between him and Galifianakis, Hamm plays the straight man to Galifianakis’ physical clown — when Tim uses his wedding ring to open a beer bottle in macho, too-cool fashion, Jeff tries to do the same and shatters the bottle, blood gushing down his wrist. Hamm always underdoes it while Galifianakis punches up the comedy, making for a duo that should perhaps try their chemistry in a better written film.
It’s unfair that Jon Hamm can be both so hunky and so darn funny. But it’s too bad that he
couldn’t make “Keeping Up with the Joneses” anything more than mediocre.
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/10/20/keeping-joneses-cant-keep-jon-hamms-charisma/No American actor has ever been cast in the role of James Bond....Especially given that there’s an American who was put on earth to play Bond: Jon Hamm.....
.....He’s positively Sean Connery-esque. Which is to say, Hamm is the rare actor who combines old-fashioned matinee-idol dash with an impossibly cool façade and a diamond hardness that would make him utterly convincing as a lethal existential cutthroat. (Could he do the whole British thing? Of course! He’s a fantastic actor.) Now don’t get me wrong: I worship Daniel Craig. But if he’s getting as tired of Bond as he has sometimes insinuated, why not let Hamm step right up? He looks like he could snap Tom Hiddleston in two. And if you want to imagine what Hamm might look like in the role, you get a bit of a light dry run watching him in “Keeping Up With the Joneses,” an amiable time killer of an espionage comedy that casts him as a U.S. government spy, married to another U.S. government spy, portrayed by Gal Gadot as a slightly more earthbound sort of wonder woman
......
Besides, who wants to see a crestfallen Jon Hamm? The actor seems more than game to undercut his image, and he’s pretty sly about it, but it’s hard to shake the feeling that there was a little executive bird perched on someone’s shoulder chirping, “You’ve got to make him more relatable.” Earth to movie executives: This is not what Jon Hamm should be doing! He’s the rare actor who combines intelligence and danger. He deserves better than playing the good sport about his post-“Mad Men” career options by clowning around in piffle like this.
http://variety.com/2016/film/reviews/keeping-up-with-the-joneses-review/
The draw here is the chemistry of the performers, their personas bouncing around like atoms against each other creating energy — Hamm suave and sophisticated, Gadot exotic and strong, Fischer cute and neurotic, while Galifianakis does his dorky, lovable-coward routine. The rule here seems to be, If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
It's just that everything around them doesn't work. The editing is awkward, the pacing off — jokes don't land, action scenes are illegible. The in-between moments are the funniest bits, rapid-fire riffs or bits of physical comedy, but there's no time to enjoy them. The story takes too long to get going, and once the film finally starts to fire on all cylinders, it's over.Hamm's character is unfortunately underwritten, caught in the no-man's land between Don Draper and a goofier comedic character. Galifianakis steals the show as the friendly fussbudget in a performance we've come to expect from him. The enormous potential on screen is tantalizing, which is why the disappointment of failed execution stings.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-keeping-up-joneses
For Galifianakis, who dials it down more than he should, and Isla Fisher, whose established comedic chops don’t really come into play, this is a wasted opportunity.
As for Hamm and Gadot — he was Mad Men’s Don Draper, she’s soon to be Wonder Woman, both are more closely associated with drama than comedy – they do what’s asked of them, but they look as though they know they’ve wandered into the wrong neighborhood.As comedy-cast showcases go, this is a case of severe underemployment.
http://philadelphianewsinfo.com/movie-review-keeping-up-with-the-joneses/
Why shell out 15 bucks for this junk if you can tune into the latest season of Black-ish, check out new gems like HBO’s Insecure, FX’s Better Things and Amazon’s Fleabag, or just google Alec Baldwin as Donald Trump on SNL? Even by standards of low-IQ escapism, the film falls short.
......the rhythm is off, the jokes don’t land, the gags are sluggish and unimaginative......Hamm offers up a breezy variation on his tormented Mad Men protagonist Don Draper, and he's a pleasure — the only one who doesn't seem to be trying too hard. Gadot looks fittingly stunning and bad-ass, though on the basis of her work here, comedy may not be her strong suit.
What do you get when you pair the actors behind Don Draper, Alan from The Hangover, the hilarious Gloria from Wedding Crashers and Wonder-freaking-Woman?
Sadly, you get one of the most boring, by-the-book action-comedies of the year.If this is what Jon Hamm is doing post-Mad Men, then he should just retire. This is truly an embarrassment. It’s unfunny, and actually manages to star all of these actors and commit the largest cinema sin: It’s totally, unequivocally boring.
Gal Gadot also stars. I’ll give her a pass because she has great things on the horizon after her small role as Wonder Woman in Batman vs. Superman. But as for the rest of these stars, they’ve been in the business long enough to know better.
For Galifianakis, this is his second flop in a month after Masterminds, and I’m quickly starting to think his Hangover role may have been his peak.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/artslife/1409087-parker-and-the-picture-shows-grab
Considering the lack of chemistry in those relationships, it’s not surprising that there’s none in the casting, either. Hamm’s career seems to have hit a plateau where the man who was impossible to resist on TV for almost a decade is intermittently interesting in film. Galifianakis plays his part deadpan to excess, as meek onscreen as his tedious character is in life. Fisher and Gadot are easy on the eyes but nothing more. Each offers a game performance but without a sharp script feeding them comedy, there is nothing intrinsically hilarious about them.
http://www.nwitimes.com/movie-review-keeping-up-with-the-joneses-is-a-dud/Galifianakis, staring at a recent string of big screen flops, delivers here and there. Fisher and Gadot have a lingerie shopping/bonding scene that exists solely to show off Gadot’s leonine form. Not funny.
And Hamm, also staring down the barrel of a big screen career that’s going nowhere, simply has nothing remotely amusing to play.
https://rogersmovienation.com/2016/11/02/movie-review-why-isnt-keeping-up-with-the-joneses
While not particularly hilarious, Keeping Up with the Joneses is a lot of fun, but it begs a much bigger question that seems to continuously go unanswered: Is Jon Hamm ever going to land a role fitting of his immense talent?
.......
But in the middle of it all is Jon Hamm, doing incredible work in a role that is simply below him. It’s exhausting to see his talent wasted as an extended comedic cameo. It’s almost as if the novelty of him simply being Jon Hamm is enough (and in a vacuum, it is), but when you’ve seen Mad Men, or the Christmas episode of Black Mirror, you know there’s a phenomenal performer just dying to flex. Can he be the next Bond? Maybe the next Batman if we’re ever lucky enough to see The Dark Knight Returns on the big screen? Please????
http://cinedelphia.com/keeping-up-with-the-joneses-review/
But it wastes its strongest weapon: its cast. As a confident, strapping super-agent, Hamm looks like he’s having fun, but Gadot seems stilted, unable to break free of her glower. More importantly, and tragically, the film plays Galifianakis and Fisher — as bland normies. You keep waiting for them to lose it, to breathe some much-needed life into this thing, but nope
http://www.villagevoice.com/film/keeping-up-with-the-joneses-has-every-reason-to-be-jealousGranted, Galifianakis is funnier here than in last month’s Masterminds, and Jon Hamm is at his dog-gone Hammiest. No matter what situation Hamm finds himself in, he’s always the coolest, suavest, most jealousy-inducing man in the room. He hits the sappy romantics with Gal Gadot just right and is able to play off Galifianakis’ do-gooder with ample comedic chops.
http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/keeping-up-with-the-joneses-review/
Improbable, predictable, and largely unfunny high jinks ensue. To be fair, the film doesn’t come off as an unmitigated disaster. But everything about it only manages to generate an indifferent ‘meh’ from viewers. The action is bland. The comedy never surpasses the mildly amusing mark. The storyline just feels generic, as does the movie itself.
.....
As for the cast, Fisher is the only one who seems to be really trying to make something out of her part; her presence exudes the verve that most of the others lack. Galifianakis and Hamm are amicable but their performances are basically unremarkable. Gadot continues to be gorgeous but her stunning looks cannot hide the fact that she still cannot act; a cardboard cut-out would have been just as effective in the role.
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/43788/keeping-up-with-the-joneses
No comments:
Post a Comment