Special Correspondents
The premise is great on paper: two journalists who should be covering a war and who, through a chain of blunders, end up pretending they are at the front when they are actually broadcasting from a restaurant. With an idea like that, a very sharp satire could have been made about journalism, television, the manufacturing of news, sensationalism and how easily the public consumes an exciting story without asking too many questions about where it comes from. The starting point has bite. The problem is that the film never quite lives up to that idea.
What frustrated me most is that everything remains too comfortable. Ricky Gervais had in his hands a comedy that could have been much more acidic, more uncomfortable and more ruthless toward the media world, but he often chooses a softer, almost pleasant line. The criticism is there, yes, but it does not bite as it should. It mocks television, reporters, lies turned into spectacle and the need to sell emotion, but it rarely really presses hard. It feels as if the film knows its target, but does not have enough force to shoot with real malice.
Even so, it did not seem unbearable to me. It has pleasant moments, a few funny situations and a cast that helps make the whole thing watchable. Eric Bana works as the more attractive, more daring and also more irresponsible journalist, while Gervais keeps for himself the role of the gray, awkward, insecure man loaded with that pathetic humor he usually handles well. The pair has a decent dynamic, although it never fully explodes. There is a good idea in that contrast between the reporter who lives off his pose and the technician who ends up trapped in a lie that is too big for both of them.
The best character, or at least the one who brings the most energy, is Vera Farmiga’s. Whenever she appears, the film seems to wake up a little. She has a mixture of selfishness, nerve, television ambition and domestic cruelty that fits very well with the satire the film wants to be. In a way, she represents better than anyone that transformation of misfortune into spectacle: she instinctively understands how to exploit a situation, how to sell tears, how to become the protagonist of someone else’s story. It is a shame the rest of the film does not always have that same nastiness.
The underlying problem is the tone. At times it wants to be a farce about media lies, at times a buddy comedy, at times a sentimental story, at times a light adventure with kidnappings, misunderstandings and redemptions. None of that is bad, but the mixture does not always find a clear rhythm. The film runs longer than necessary and loses energy just when it should become more complicated. You can feel the structure: the deception, the unexpected success, the ever-growing mess, the guilt, the desperate flight forward and the kind resolution. It works, but in a way that is too predictable.
It also lacks sharper comic intelligence. I do not mean it needed to be an intellectual film, but it should have got more juice from an idea that called for sharper jokes and more dangerous situations. Fake journalism, war turned into product, an audience moved by a lie, media outlets competing for an invented exclusive… all of that could have led to a much fiercer comedy. Here, instead, many scenes settle for being pleasant. They are not horrible, but they are not memorable either. You watch them, understand them and forget them rather quickly.
Ricky Gervais is part of the appeal and part of the limit. He has that style of discomfort, defeat and sarcasm, but the film does not find a character as perfect for him as others we already know. His presence sustains some moments, but you can also feel that the writing is not as inspired as it should be. There is irony, awkwardness and the occasional recognizable touch of his humor, but it lacks the mordant edge that turns a minor comedy into something truly special. Here he seems more contained, more domesticated, as if the film did not want to bother anyone too much.
All in all, I watched it with a certain sympathy. It is not a disaster, nor a completely failed comedy. It has a strong premise, actors who work, some scenes with charm and a fairly current idea underneath: we live surrounded by manufactured stories, packaged emotions and truths that depend too much on who is telling them. But it stays halfway. It is not as funny as it should be, not as corrosive as it could be and not as intelligent as it promises at the beginning. A passable film, pleasant at times, but too soft for an idea that needed much more venom.
What frustrated me most is that everything remains too comfortable. Ricky Gervais had in his hands a comedy that could have been much more acidic, more uncomfortable and more ruthless toward the media world, but he often chooses a softer, almost pleasant line. The criticism is there, yes, but it does not bite as it should. It mocks television, reporters, lies turned into spectacle and the need to sell emotion, but it rarely really presses hard. It feels as if the film knows its target, but does not have enough force to shoot with real malice.
Even so, it did not seem unbearable to me. It has pleasant moments, a few funny situations and a cast that helps make the whole thing watchable. Eric Bana works as the more attractive, more daring and also more irresponsible journalist, while Gervais keeps for himself the role of the gray, awkward, insecure man loaded with that pathetic humor he usually handles well. The pair has a decent dynamic, although it never fully explodes. There is a good idea in that contrast between the reporter who lives off his pose and the technician who ends up trapped in a lie that is too big for both of them.
The best character, or at least the one who brings the most energy, is Vera Farmiga’s. Whenever she appears, the film seems to wake up a little. She has a mixture of selfishness, nerve, television ambition and domestic cruelty that fits very well with the satire the film wants to be. In a way, she represents better than anyone that transformation of misfortune into spectacle: she instinctively understands how to exploit a situation, how to sell tears, how to become the protagonist of someone else’s story. It is a shame the rest of the film does not always have that same nastiness.
The underlying problem is the tone. At times it wants to be a farce about media lies, at times a buddy comedy, at times a sentimental story, at times a light adventure with kidnappings, misunderstandings and redemptions. None of that is bad, but the mixture does not always find a clear rhythm. The film runs longer than necessary and loses energy just when it should become more complicated. You can feel the structure: the deception, the unexpected success, the ever-growing mess, the guilt, the desperate flight forward and the kind resolution. It works, but in a way that is too predictable.
It also lacks sharper comic intelligence. I do not mean it needed to be an intellectual film, but it should have got more juice from an idea that called for sharper jokes and more dangerous situations. Fake journalism, war turned into product, an audience moved by a lie, media outlets competing for an invented exclusive… all of that could have led to a much fiercer comedy. Here, instead, many scenes settle for being pleasant. They are not horrible, but they are not memorable either. You watch them, understand them and forget them rather quickly.
Ricky Gervais is part of the appeal and part of the limit. He has that style of discomfort, defeat and sarcasm, but the film does not find a character as perfect for him as others we already know. His presence sustains some moments, but you can also feel that the writing is not as inspired as it should be. There is irony, awkwardness and the occasional recognizable touch of his humor, but it lacks the mordant edge that turns a minor comedy into something truly special. Here he seems more contained, more domesticated, as if the film did not want to bother anyone too much.
All in all, I watched it with a certain sympathy. It is not a disaster, nor a completely failed comedy. It has a strong premise, actors who work, some scenes with charm and a fairly current idea underneath: we live surrounded by manufactured stories, packaged emotions and truths that depend too much on who is telling them. But it stays halfway. It is not as funny as it should be, not as corrosive as it could be and not as intelligent as it promises at the beginning. A passable film, pleasant at times, but too soft for an idea that needed much more venom.
Mini Review: The premise is great on paper: two journalists who should be covering a war and who, through a chain of blunders, end up pretending they are at the front when they are actually broadcasting from a restaurant. With an idea like that, a very sharp satire could have been made about journalism, television, the manufacturing of news, sensationalism and how easily the public consumes an exciting story without asking too many questions about where it...
Watch the Trailer