s thematic preoccupations are the same as other movies headlined by a member of the Judd Apatow's stock company, even the ones that got . What's the difference? Those other raunchy bromances weren't set in medieval times. This one is. Also, there are dragons.
It's the fantasy elements that reviewers seem to have the biggest problem with. When The Hollywood Reporter's opens his review with the observation that "great screen comedies that feature a severed Minotaur's penis as a key prop are, sadly, few and far between," he's technically right, and deserves credit for getting off a good line. But terrible comedies that feature a Minotaur's penis, severed or otherwise, are equally rare. It's almost as if Honeycutt just wanted to make a joke about Minotaurs being silly.didn't even try to engage with the world of damsels and sorcerers. He couldn't get past the fact director David Gordon Green and star Danny McBride (who co-wrote the script) were spending so much of their time and Universal's money "satirizing a genre that nobody goes to see when it's played straight."
Ebert has a point. Aside from Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Princess Bride, and maybe Stardust, we can't think of any fantasy films that have been well-received by critics. Granted, there's been no shortage of hokey, barely releasable fantasy offerings over the years to sour critics on the entire genre. T
留言列表
