Skip to main content

How am I supposed to put my hands in the air with my head on the floor?

Game Night
(2018)

(SPOILERS) I was mildly enthused by the trailer for Game Night, as it had the look of a somewhat irresponsible, slightly anarchic Hollywood black comedy, one less reliant on gross out (naturally, there’s some of that) than twisted plotting and unapologetic displays of amorality in its characters. In fact, it toes the line much more than it doesn’t, right down to delivering pat life lessons, but John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein’s movie is still a cut above for such fare.


Surprisingly, Jason Bateman hasn’t essayed one of these leads in a few years, but his brand is so patented – deadpan stoicism in the face of excruciating embarrassment – that Game Night fits right in (the duo also penned Bateman starrer Horrible Bosses 2, and half of them the first Horrible Bosses; here, they rewrote Mark Perez’ screenplay, he of Herbie Fully Loaded fame). Which may be a disadvantage, as for all its relative bravado and flourish, the picture frequently reminds you of other fare treading similar ground, and you don’t really want a long trail of déjà vu following you. Originality is hard to come by in any genre, of course, but even the title begs comparison with David Fincher’s (weakest?) picture The Game, in which a wayward brother purchases his uptight sibling a real-life, real-stakes reality show adventure where (the idea is) the audience isn’t sure what is real and what’s fake. That picture fizzled on the basis of a premise so loaded and unlikely, even the usually unflappable Fincher couldn’t imbue it with conviction (despite many excellent sequences). That and its entirely obnoxious denouement.


So there’s some of that. There’s also a strong whiff of underrated late-stage Bill Murray comedy – back when he was still content to make crowd-pleasing Hollywood comedies, rather than being a full-time indie darling - The Man Who Knew Too Little. It was, in fact, his final movie of that ilk. Here, Murray’s character is convinced by his brother – oh look, that conceit again – to sign up to an improv theatre group’s interactive crime drama. Murray, of course, becomes involved in an actual plot, the key to his success being his obliviousness to the danger he’s in. There’s quite a bit of that in Game Night, as Daley and Goldstein alternate between the game participants light-heartedly believing everything is a big ruse and becoming convinced they really are in danger.


Max (Bateman) and Annie (McAdams) host weekly game nights, of which they’re habitually the proud, simpatico winners; routinely joining them are dense stud Ryan (Billy Magnussen, offering a note-perfect depiction of a complete idiot) and whichever bimbo he’s brought along, and childhood sweethearts Kevin (Lamorne Morris) and Michelle (Kylie Bunbury). Not invited is next door neighbour Gary (Jesse Plemons, possibly the standout turn and all knife-edge, placid imperiousness – his The Green Mile Pictionary is the best movie use of the game since “Baby Fish Mouth” in When Harry Met Sally), an overly serious cop obsessing over his ex. The only thorns in Max and Annie’s perfect set up are their trying for a baby (unsuccessfully, and likely Max’s problem, as Camille Chen’s Dr Chin indelicately stresses) and Max’s brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler), the more successful, handsomer, just plain better-liked sibling who constantly belittles and demeans his brother whenever he visits. As he does here. Brooks is an arse, and also the instigator of the movie’s game night-with-a-difference.


Daley and Goldstein are largely successful in navigating the various shifts in tone and emphasis, even if the B-plot character arcs are strictly pedestrian; Max must overcome his reluctance to have children, Ryan admit to his interest in a woman of intelligence – Sharon Horgan’s Sarah – and Kevin sort out his jealousy over Michelle’s fling when they were separated that one time before they married. In particular, Michelle can’t help looking like a complete moron when it’s revealed the guy she slept with, who she believed was Denzel Washington, patently was not. There’s also a problem that Brooks isn’t remotely likeable despite himself – Chandler fails to pull that off, alas – so rather than finding it amusing that the wily rogue makes a mint from selling the witness protection programme list, we rather wish he’d received his comeuppance.


Nevertheless, the set pieces are first rate and show a versatility from the comedy directors (who previously helmed Vacation) that bodes well for their upcoming – until they exit, like so many have before them – DC’s Flashpoint (WB likely has their own version of the success of the Russo brothers with Marvel in mind, since they also came from a comedy background). The initial establishing of the game, courtesy of a cameo from Jeffrey Wright, as the group obliviously eat cheese while Brooks is (kind of) genuinely beaten up, is a tour de force. As is the search for a Fabergé egg in criminal Danny Huston’s house, while “Eyes Wide Fight Club” proceeds in the basement, during which Magnussen steals the best moments as he blithely decides to lift the prized object from an open safe. Other highlights include Max bleeding all over Gary’s dog and only making matters worse when he tries to clean the mess up, and a particularly grim bullet extraction – using Chardonnay to clean the wound –  only to discover it passed straight through Max’s arm. And a running glass table gag.


The chemistry between the cast – particularly Bateman and McAdams – sells much of the unlikeliness of the proceedings, and there are enough twists in the plot – the reveal regarding Gary, only to refocus that reveal – that you’re kept on your toes (the idea that the whole thing might be a ruse is never completely banished, even given a trailer that spoiled a late-in-the-day pulverisation by jet engine (after all, The Game tried to explain away even more incredulous occurrences). Cinematographer Barry Peterson has carved himself a niche in the comedy game but relishes the opportunity to provide a more noirish sheen this time, and includes the occasional curious affectation, such as establishing shots that manage to make the locations look like toy towns or model villages.


I’ll admit I was hoping for something a little less cosy in the final analysis, as Game Night is really only playing at being edgy – Shane Black-lite, if you will – but Daley and Goldstein have put some solid effort in that explains the more generous than usual critical reception. The principal poster of choice sucks, though (not the ones here).



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?