Johnny English (2003)

500 character mini-reviews cramping your style? Share your thoughts in full in this forum!
MmzHrrdb
Your TCI: na

Johnny English (2003)

Post by MmzHrrdb »

If I didn't feel like ruthlessly tearing this film apart at the moment, I could simply copy and paste the majority of my review of Shawn Levy's The Pink Panther, as many of my points in that review apply to Johnny English (not to mention that both films are nearly identical). And yet, Johnny English is even worse, and while at least the Pink Panther provided a meager handful of infrequent chuckles, Johnny English has little to no working gags. Once again, I am disgusted by the low standards of live action children's cinema- that is, if I dare to refer to this inexcusably terrible piece of formulaic tripe as cinema.

There's hardly any plot in Johnny English. The majority of the film is made up of loosely related action/comedy scenarios that are neither exciting, nor comedic. The bare bones plot of the film is that Johnny English- by account of an absurdly violent incident at the beginning of the film resulting in the death of every other agent in the country- is the only living secret agent in England, and therefore, the only person that can uncover the secret behind some stolen jewels. Teamed with his partner, Angus Bough (who contradicts the film's previous statement that all of the other agents have died), they must uncover the missing jewels, as well as stop an evil "genius" from becoming king.

Johnny English has almost nothing that will appeal to anyone over the age of 9 (and I am sorry to insult those 1-9 year-olds in this manner). All the children's film cliches are here, including poop jokes, silly dancing, a bumbling main character, and dozens of other unfortunate elements.

The humor is also subject to not one, but two shots of a man's bare bottom (one of which is an extended bit), and an alarmingly raunchy scene of innuendo that struck me as completely out of place for a PG film. In addition to quite a bit of violence, and a surprising amount of language, I can't imagine what parent would feel comfortable letting their kids watch this.

And yet, as I stated before, there is nearly nothing here that could possibly be enjoyable to anyone whose age is in their double digits. At times, Johnny English is downright insulting in it's stupidity, and general laziness.

We've seen everything in this film before in other movies. Just rarely this poorly. Johnny English is also an extremely predictable movie, with gags that can be predicted before they even begin to occur. There's not an original gag in this film, and I struggle to think of any funny one(s).

Rowan Atikson tries hard as Johnny English, but he cannot make the material work, no matter how silly his faces. John Malkovich as the villain, Pascal Sauvage, sports what might be the worst, unintentionally bad French accent I've ever seen in a feature film. Supporting actors like Ben Miller and Natalie Imbruglia are so forgettable and weak in their roles, that they're hardly worth mention.

The only vaguely bright spot about this film is its half-way decent score, composed by Edward Shearmur. Purposefully emphasizing on spy cliches, the score is actually pretty fun at times, if somewhat formulaic.

Unfunny, even vulgar, and an utter failure in almost every respect (not to mention sloppily edited, and poorly shot), Johnny English is one of the worst kids films I've seen in recent memory- an impressive feat. Consistently defying logic, physics, and my tolerance, Johnny English is an aggressively bad film. Other than acknowledge the score again, the best thing I can say about Johnny English is that its only 88 minutes. And yet, that is certainly 88 minutes too long.

Score: 1/10

ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Johnny English (2003)

Post by ShogunRua »

I'm actually relieved that JLFM hated it. I expected him to miss all the humor, and if wrong, would have been forced to admit I misjudged the guy. (kid?)

Here was my mini-review;

"People just don't seem to understand that this was an over-the-top parody that perfectly spoofed the Bond films, while showing off Atkinson's legendary comedic ability. The funniest film ever made, with certain scenes that literally had me gasping for breath. (The "Dr. Frankenstein" scene at the hospital, or the climax against Malkovich's character.)"

If you're not into Atkinson's use of vocal tones, facial expressions, and body language to elicit humor, and if on top of that, have zero knowledge of the classic Bond Moore/Connery films, this comedy isn't for you. But if you do, it's absolutely amazing.

Edit-

I normally don't bother reading JLFM's reviews, but decided to scan this one. Seriously, guy? Hate the film if you want, but don't lie about the content. That's fucked-up; purposely deceiving people isn't cool no matter how much you hate a film.

For instance, I dislike "The Lion King", but I would never claim there is a "nauseating romance between Simba and Nala that dominates the film", because it's an awful misrepresentation.

Similarly, "poop jokes"?! There aren't any! The closest thing is Johnny trying to crawl inside a heavily guarded building, and having to go through a path that leads to the toilet. No one poops, but he is filthy when he gets out.

"Silly dancing" isn't a total fabrication, at least, but it's at also misconstruing the film. It literally appears one time in the entire movie, for perhaps 20 seconds, and only one part of several other comical things going on at the same time.

Was "Tropic Thunder" also a shit movie just because it featured a (much longer) scene of silly dancing by Tom Cruise's character at the end? I can think of many excellent comedies that had short periods of silly dancing.

I could go on, but for anyone reading JLFM's review and considering the movie, please don't take any part of his review seriously. Finally,

JLFM wrote:The humor is also subject to not one, but two shots of a man's bare bottom (one of which is an extended bit), and an alarmingly raunchy scene of innuendo that struck me as completely out of place for a PG film. In addition to quite a bit of violence, and a surprising amount of language, I can't imagine what parent would feel comfortable letting their kids watch this.


And I can't imagine what you would think of PG comedies from the 70s and 80s...

MmzHrrdb
Your TCI: na

Re: Johnny English (2003)

Post by MmzHrrdb »

ShogunRua wrote:I normally don't bother reading JLFM's reviews, but decided to scan this one. Seriously, guy? Hate the film if you want, but don't lie about the content. That's fucked-up; purposely deceiving people isn't cool no matter how much you hate a film.


I don't recall ever lying about the content in the film. With the exception that this won't please anyone over the age of 9, because I assume you are not 9 or under, but you clearly enjoyed this film.

ShogunRua wrote:Similarly, "poop jokes"?! There aren't any! The closest thing is Johnny trying to crawl inside a heavily guarded building, and having to go through a path that leads to the toilet. No one poops, but he is filthy when he gets out.


Beg your pardon? Johnny English climbs up a sewer, we see an array of large men sitting on toilets, and one of them flushes, causing a large amount of brown goop to fall upon our hero. Either you fell asleep during this apart (for which I couldn't blame you for doing), or you're purposely deceiving people; which isn't cool no matter how much you love a film.

ShogunRua wrote:"Silly dancing" isn't a total fabrication, at least, but it's at also misconstruing the film. It literally appears one time in the entire movie, for perhaps 20 seconds, and only one part of several other comical things going on at the same time.


I have a few points here. 1.), there are a number of sequences amounting to silly dancing adding up to at least a minute. 2.) Even a 5 second fart joke is painful and worth noting. 3.) And of course other films can be funny and feature silly dancing! This just isn't one of them, and because silly dancing is often implemented so foolishly, it can only be counted as a flaw, unless specifically stated otherwise.

ShogunRua wrote:And I can't imagine what you would think of PG comedies from the 70s and 80s...


Considering there was not a PG-13 rating in the 70s and 80s, I wouldn't be too surprised to see more mature content in PG comedies of that time period. But seeing as this comedy had access to the PG-13 rating at this time, it puzzles me as to why this one would add just enough content to avoid getting a PG-13. Clearly this film's content is inappropriate for the average PG-rated film's target audience. But also, older ones are likely to be turned off by the silly slapstick and childish elements of the film, so the mature content is not justified.

I want to thank you, ShogunRua for a number of things. One, you have given me a chance to engage in heated discussion over a great love of both of ours; film. I rarely get to do this in real life, so I always look forward to these debates here. Also, I want to thank you for being one of my most faithful readers. Life is precious, and I'm quite happy you're choosing to use yours to read my reviews and analyze them. It's always a pleasure.

CMonster
Posts: 689
1444 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:22 am

Re: Johnny English (2003)

Post by CMonster »


ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Johnny English (2003)

Post by ShogunRua »

JLFM wrote:
ShogunRua wrote:Similarly, "poop jokes"?! There aren't any! The closest thing is Johnny trying to crawl inside a heavily guarded building, and having to go through a path that leads to the toilet. No one poops, but he is filthy when he gets out.


Beg your pardon? Johnny English climbs up a sewer, we see an array of large men sitting on toilets, and one of them flushes, causing a large amount of brown goop to fall upon our hero. Either you fell asleep during this apart (for which I couldn't blame you for doing), or you're purposely deceiving people; which isn't cool no matter how much you love a film.


The point is, no one actually "poops" in the film. There is brown goop, yes, but no one "pooping".

Also, even if we accept your warped interpretation, we're talking about a single 20 second gag. Nevermind all the classic comedies, with Caddyshack immediately coming to mind, that had far more scat humor.

ShogunRua wrote:"Silly dancing" isn't a total fabrication, at least, but it's at also misconstruing the film. It literally appears one time in the entire movie, for perhaps 20 seconds, and only one part of several other comical things going on at the same time.

I have a few points here. 1.), there are a number of sequences amounting to silly dancing adding up to at least a minute.

2.) Even a 5 second fart joke is painful and worth noting.


Which Johnny English didn't have.

JLFM wrote:3.) And of course other films can be funny and feature silly dancing!


So in other words, you admit your original statement "all the children's film cliches are here, including...silly dancing" is nonsense?

JLFM wrote: This just isn't one of them, and because silly dancing is often implemented so foolishly, it can only be counted as a flaw, unless specifically stated otherwise.


I think it's implemented extremely well, considering it's never the lone joke. The only time Johnny English dances, for about 20 seconds, it's just one part of several other funny things going on at the same time.

I can't believe how much you have latched on to two things in the film (dancing and brown goop) that occupy all of 40 seconds of screen time!

JLFM wrote:Considering there was not a PG-13 rating in the 70s and 80s, I wouldn't be too surprised to see more mature content in PG comedies of that time period. But seeing as this comedy had access to the PG-13 rating at this time, it puzzles me as to why this one would add just enough content to avoid getting a PG-13. Clearly this film's content is inappropriate for the average PG-rated film's target audience. But also, older ones are likely to be turned off by the silly slapstick and childish elements of the film, so the mature content is not justified.


In other words, the MPAA giving this a PG instead of a PG-13 rating is a grave weakness of the film itself? That's a new one.

JLFM wrote:Also, I want to thank you for being one of my most faithful readers. Life is precious, and I'm quite happy you're choosing to use yours to read my reviews and analyze them. It's always a pleasure.


Don't flatter yourself. This is perhaps the 4th or 5th of your reviews I have ever even clicked on, and I merely skimmed through the actual contents for 10-15 seconds.

Then again, that might actually still make me one of your most faithful readers. Most everyone else just ignores your ramblings.

MmzHrrdb
Your TCI: na

Re: Johnny English (2003)

Post by MmzHrrdb »

ShogunRua wrote:The point is, no one actually "poops" in the film. There is brown goop, yes, but no one "pooping".


I never said in my review that there is pooping, I simply said that there are poop jokes, which is undeniable.

ShogunRua wrote:Which Johnny English didn't have.


I wasn't actually implying that Johnny English had any fart jokes. I was merely saying that a poorly conceived gag is still painful, no matter how long.

ShogunRua wrote:So in other words, you admit your original statement "all the children's film cliches are here, including...silly dancing" is nonsense?


No, silly dancing is still a children's film cliche, and it is still in the film. What would lead you to believe that my original statement is nonsense?

ShogunRua wrote:I think it's implemented extremely well, considering it's never the lone joke. The only time Johnny English dances, for about 20 seconds, it's just one part of several other funny things going on at the same time.


Well, that's simply your opinion, and though mine differs, I certainly can't argue with that.

ShogunRua wrote:I can't believe how much you have latched on to two things in the film (dancing and brown goop) that occupy all of 40 seconds of screen time!


If I recall, I only briefly mentioned poop jokes and silly dancing once in my review. You on the other hand are defending these things to the death! There are many things worth defending and putting effort into doing so; poop jokes and silly dancing do not apply here.

ShogunRua wrote:In other words, the MPAA giving this a PG instead of a PG-13 rating is a grave weakness of the film itself? That's a new one.


Did I consider it a weakness? No. In my review, I merely said that if I were a parent, I wouldn't feel comfortable letting my children watch this film, and that is all. Also, I never said that this film should have been PG-13 (it barely floats under the rating though, and it's indeed pushing it).

ShogunRua wrote:Don't flatter yourself. This is perhaps the 4th or 5th of your reviews I have ever even clicked on, and I merely skimmed through the actual contents for 10-15 seconds.


And yet, you still return to converse. You are obviously interested in what I have to say, even if you disagree with it, which is enough for me.

ShogunRua wrote:Then again, that might actually still make me one of your most faithful readers. Most everyone else just ignores your ramblings.


And yet, I am a hired film critic, while you are using your life arguing with people- who are nearly half your age, I might add- about poop jokes. Apparently, there are enough people that are interested in my reviews for me to have a consistent flow of comments and support from the various websites I post my reviews on (including this one).

ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Johnny English (2003)

Post by ShogunRua »

JLFM wrote:No, silly dancing is still a children's film cliche, and it is still in the film. What would lead you to believe that my original statement is nonsense?


The fact that even you admitted that many excellent adult comedies have featured "silly dancing".

Ergo, it can't be a bad children's film cliche.

JLFM wrote:
ShogunRua wrote:I think it's implemented extremely well, considering it's never the lone joke. The only time Johnny English dances, for about 20 seconds, it's just one part of several other funny things going on at the same time.


Well, that's simply your opinion, and though mine differs, I certainly can't argue with that.


You're missing the point. It's not about you having a different opinion. It's about you purposely mis-characterizing the film's content. You remind me of the hysteria on a news program about a few tame sex scenes in Mass Effect (a tiny portion of the overall content), and how this supposedly made the game "pornographic" or a "sex simulator";

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKzF173GqTU

If anything, your comments about Johnny English are even worse, since the commentators about Mass Effect were mis-characterizing it from sheer ignorance (neither had actually played the game), whereas you're doing so deliberately, having watched the movie.

JLFM wrote:If I recall, I only briefly mentioned poop jokes and silly dancing once in my review.


Except you cited them as the main reasons the film is juvenile trash! When you weren't making lame, unoriginal insults, the only criticism you made of Johnny English that specifically mentioned its actual content was "poop jokes" and "silly dancing", something that takes up 40 seconds of the film's 100 minute runtime. In other words, about one third of a single percent of the film.

Again, that's a factual misrepresentation of the movie's content.

JLFM wrote:Did I consider it a weakness? No. In my review, I merely said that if I were a parent, I wouldn't feel comfortable letting my children watch this film, and that is all. Also, I never said that this film should have been PG-13 (it barely floats under the rating though, and it's indeed pushing it).


You're backpedaling so hard, I'm surprised you haven't tripped.

If you agree that a film's MPAA rating has nothing to do with its quality, then why did you devote an entire paragraph of a critical review bemoaning that it was only rated PG?

JLFM wrote:And yet, you still return to converse. You are obviously interested in what I have to say, even if you disagree with it, which is enough for me.


I'm "interested" because you purposely lied about the movie. I'm content ignoring you otherwise, but spreading misinformation is crossing a line, no matter how much you disliked what you saw.

JLFM wrote:And yet, I am a hired film critic,


HAHAHA. What impressive self-delusion! Yes, the reason I called you out on blatant lying is because I'm deeply jealous of a "hired film critic"! That's it! Nevermind that many regular posters on these forums, myself included, make vastly more money from our jobs than any film critic on the planet does. You're a real big-shot, being a "hired film critic" and all!

Tell me; who "hired" you? What are you getting paid?

JLFM wrote:Apparently, there are enough people that are interested in my reviews for me to have a consistent flow of comments and support from the various websites I post my reviews on (including this one).


Oh, do you mean that Criticker "hired" you, since you spam reviews in their subforum?

I think perhaps you're confused about what the word "hire" means. It entails an actual exchange of money.

Dunder74
Posts: 58
1281 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Johnny English (2003)

Post by Dunder74 »

A childhood favorite of mine and still pretty good to this day.

You compare it to The Pink Panther, but I think that's far too excessive. THAT film suffers from the kind of excessive lowbrow-ness that makes kids' films so bad. Johnny English is more subdued. There are poops and butts, but there are also gems from Atkinson's performance and the parodic tone.

Dunder74
Posts: 58
1281 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Johnny English (2003)

Post by Dunder74 »

A childhood favorite of mine and still pretty good to this day.

You compare it to The Pink Panther, but I think that's far too excessive. THAT film suffers from the kind of blatant lowbrow-ness that makes kids' films so bad. Johnny English is more subdued. There are poops and butts, but there are also gems from Atkinson's performance and the parodic tone.

Jesus is Coming, Look Busy

Ag0stoMesmer
Posts: 351
4943 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:23 am

Re: Johnny English (2003)

Post by Ag0stoMesmer »

Hey guys, I've been reading and enjoying JFLMs reviews for a while now (not necessarily agreeing though as our tcis'll show) keep up the good work.

JE didn't work for me either and as I watched it was reminded of this interview for Beans Holiday;
[spoiler]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WwUEFqxY-E[/spoiler]
In there they mention that BHol isn't regular slapstick, it's more anxiety-based humour, something I think it shares with JE. Crawling in a toilet is funny to some but produces too much anxiety to be funny in others perhaps? I don't think it's an age thing but youngsters have yet to accumulate as much anxious baggage, perhaps that's why many see it as a film more for kids?

Despite enjoying Atkinson in Blackadder and even the Bean TV stuff, JE and BHol didn't work for me at all. Humour is a very individual thing though, I love Curb Your Enthusiasm and The Office cringe-fests but my Mum will demand the channel changed at the first sight of Gervaise or David for instance.

TL;DR
I don't think this is the slapstick romp it first appears to be, it's humour has allot more anxiety in it, perhaps that's what puts people off.

Post Reply