The Interview has at least one key thing in common with Life of Brian. They both reflect a need for people who assemble boffo stuff to eventually get around to taking on the Big Dogs. With the Python, it was the life of Christ; and with Rogen, it's geopolitics and heavy power.
And, en route, both parties manage to hit a few high points. In Brian, the Python boys managed to cleverly address some important stuff; like, that there were scads of apocalyptic "prophets" to choose from in Jesus's time, and that the Romans had brought very clever urban planning to yet-another benighted region. And, of course, that unsightly mutations of historical "fact" may begin to occur much closer to the actual events than one might like to believe.
So, what do Rogen, et.al. hit upon? Besides, that is, ((spoiler!)) the comely state-appointed hostess?
For one thing, Franco's over-the-top comedic chops are delightful. And I was delighted to see them plied in service to a timely message for the American media circus, to wit: Thinking that the world can be changed for the better by feeding the American masses faith-/emotion-based tearjerking pablum can only happen in a wacky, zany, vehicle/buddy comedy tidbit movie.
Hmmm. Was there something else? Well, not really. The Interview is, actually, a high-production-values, self-indulgent mess: But that's not much of a surprise. Although I do harbor some respect for Rogen and his coterie, he has yet to rise more than a little above mere shock appeal. There are many examples of "low" humor that manage to throw out very challenging ideas--of which Life of Brian is a good example. Certain cuts of Bad Santa would also fill that bill.
So, what _is_ funny about The Interview? It's interesting that Franco manages to single-handedly provide about 90% of real comedic character chops. I don't follow Franco, but this viewing provides a hint as to why he makes the big bucks. Put the man in front of a camera and he lights up and pays off in silver dollars. It might be worth watching the flick just for that.
I give this flick a '7' because, without the production values and Franco, it would have rated a '5' from me.
And, en route, both parties manage to hit a few high points. In Brian, the Python boys managed to cleverly address some important stuff; like, that there were scads of apocalyptic "prophets" to choose from in Jesus's time, and that the Romans had brought very clever urban planning to yet-another benighted region. And, of course, that unsightly mutations of historical "fact" may begin to occur much closer to the actual events than one might like to believe.
So, what do Rogen, et.al. hit upon? Besides, that is, ((spoiler!)) the comely state-appointed hostess?
For one thing, Franco's over-the-top comedic chops are delightful. And I was delighted to see them plied in service to a timely message for the American media circus, to wit: Thinking that the world can be changed for the better by feeding the American masses faith-/emotion-based tearjerking pablum can only happen in a wacky, zany, vehicle/buddy comedy tidbit movie.
Hmmm. Was there something else? Well, not really. The Interview is, actually, a high-production-values, self-indulgent mess: But that's not much of a surprise. Although I do harbor some respect for Rogen and his coterie, he has yet to rise more than a little above mere shock appeal. There are many examples of "low" humor that manage to throw out very challenging ideas--of which Life of Brian is a good example. Certain cuts of Bad Santa would also fill that bill.
So, what _is_ funny about The Interview? It's interesting that Franco manages to single-handedly provide about 90% of real comedic character chops. I don't follow Franco, but this viewing provides a hint as to why he makes the big bucks. Put the man in front of a camera and he lights up and pays off in silver dollars. It might be worth watching the flick just for that.
I give this flick a '7' because, without the production values and Franco, it would have rated a '5' from me.