Comment

Community comment are the opinions of contributing users. These comment do not represent the opinions of Surrey Libraries.
Sep 08, 2018ryanever rated this title 1.5 out of 5 stars
I work in an office, and annually we have to take training for workplace safety and conduct. This usually comes in the form of in-house produced video skits showing examples of possible situations of workplace no-nos. Watching this movie around the time I was doing this training, I remarked on how similar in quality the two were. Both take real-life people who are actually involved in the real situation, and asks them to play "actor" for a day. Yes, this movie plays like workplace training skit videos. Even at only about 90 minutes, it amazes how much is totally unnecessary, in both small and large scales. For instance, the entire beginning childhood sequence, which is lengthy, never really pays off later. Then as adults, there are little scenes that are so mundane and uninteresting, like all three of them ordering their gelato flavors at a counter, or an entire phone conversation on video phone, only to hang up and make a *second* call? Why was this deemed worthy to put in the film? Why are we watching him endure a lengthy training montage to get a certain job in the army, only to have him disqualified for that job in half a minute, never to return to it? For sure, congratulations to the heroes who saved the situation, and I understand Eastwood wanting to promote them, but even the pros involved can't come close to saving this. I can't help but be reminded of Kramer in Seinfeld wanting to play himself in Jerry's pilot. "But I am me!" "You can't act!" Despite being the most natural for the job, everything in this movie comes off as awkward and unnatural. Instead of picking up the amateurs, the pros, like Eastwood and Jenna Fisher and others, unfortunately sink down to their level making this a train wreck.