30 minutes maximum

This could have been a fun movie...there is a plot, the casting is good...but once again, we have a prime case of screen writers who really aren't. It's as if, in half the movies these days, and this is a perfect example of one, the writers have no clue as to how to write dialogue, so they decide to talk dirty for an hour and a half and call it good. It isn't. It's awful. If this is still the remains of trying for shock value in movies, it doesn't work anymore. It's boring. It's dull. It's repetitive. Viewers don't want shock value. We want entertainment. Somewhere out there in Hollywood land, there have to be writers who can actually write - who have imagination - who have creativity. But, unfortunately, none were hired for this movie. Blah!

The film's plot is just how it is presented, so I will just focus on where the film fell short despite all the ingredients for success.

I saw the trailer for this and was hoping for a good, not great, summer comedy. The quality of writing in this genre can be difficult to predict based on trailers because we see two minutes of footage trying to bring us to the theater, which often leaves the best jokes spoiled before the first minute. The main reason I chose to watch 30 Minutes or Less was because of Jesse Eisenburg. Coming off of his solid performance in The Social Network and his previous roles in comedy, surely he is in a position to wait for a good script.

There is a good cast here of actors who have had supporting roles or just a brief scene in big comedies over the past few years (Aziz Ansari and Nick Swardson in particular), who outside the comedy circuit aren't recognizable names yet. Danny McBride is getting perfect at playing this kind of character (the drug dealer in Observe and Report comes to mind) who projects the pure alpha male ego and aggression of someone of authority - all while misusing every quote, saying and fact considered to be common knowledge.

I just erased a long analysis of my gripes, which aren't necessary to explain in such detail. The script was just flawed for comedy in my eyes and no one could save it. Mainly, the movie went back and forth between crazy but theoretically possible and not trying at all to seem believable. The characters are sometimes exaggerated kinds of people that exist and those who cannot, and with whom no one could relate to. Good comedies require more than lots of good jokes and actors. It all must come together in some way that works on the level presented, because context is what humor plays off. The best jokes of the film could be put essentially anywhere in any film and work the same.

Though the screenwriter Michael Diliberti denies it, it's pretty clear with the striking similarities that 30 Minutes or Less is trying to mirror the 2003 incident where a pizza delivery man was forced to rob a bank with, what he thought, was a fake bomb around his neck. Unfortunately it wasn't, and the bomb exploded killing him. Diliberti was said to be "vaguely aware" of it, but after you watch the film, then read the story, it becomes pretty clear that he was more than that.

30 Minutes or Less is a highly energetic comedy with many laughs, but way too many action set pieces. It relies on that instead of the chemistry between Jesse Eisenberg and Aziz Ansari. The film is about Nick (Eisenberg), a pizza man who promises your pizza in thirty minutes or less. His best friend Chet (Ansari) is disgusted when he learns that Nick is sleeping with his twin sister Kate (Vadsaria). They fight and then go on with their merry way.

Meanwhile we are also introduced to Dwayne (McBride) and Travis (Swardson), two losers who work for ten dollars an hour cleaning Dwayne's father's pool. Dwayne's dad (played by Fred Ward who scores some of the biggest and dirtiest laughs in the film) was in the military and won the ten million dollar jackpot on the lottery years ago. He spends his money worse than a drunken sailor on big screen TVs, pools, and cars, but somehow has managed to not blow all ten million yet. This causes much dismay amongst Dwayne who is sick of his father's spending habits and his unpleasant personality.

One night at a strip club, a dancer convinces Dwayne that she should call her hit-man (Pena) to kill Dwayne's father so he can inherit the money so that she can make quite a few bucks off of him. The problem is that the hit-man needs $100,000 or he won't do it. So, Dwayne and Travis call an unsuspecting pizza man, who of course has to be Nick, strap a bomb vest to him, tell him that he needs to rob a bank in less than ten hours or the bomb will detonate. When he gets the money he'll be given a code that will disarm the bomb.

That is one bloated comedic premise, and it astonishes me everyone in the film is stupid enough to actually go through with all that. Director Ruben Fleischer who worked with Eisenberg on Zombieland two years ago has unfortunately made him take about ten steps back from the genius he played in The Social Network.

Eisenberg and Ansari seem like they could assist in making some lovable, Harold and Kumar-like chemistry. The problem is the film doesn't ever want to let the characters go off on their own, and at the fear of the audience becoming bored, they decide to throw in so many cliché action set pieces. Once the heist happens, the film doesn't have any purpose else so it decides to throw in a bunch of typical twists and turns hoping to extend the plot past an hour and twenty minutes. It already barely sustains a full length film.

30 Minutes or Less does pack in some pretty heavy laughs, most of them coming from Aziz Ansari as he shows why he should be involved as the lead in more R-rated comedies. He's different and funnier than most comedy actors and he almost compliments the mediocre Danny McBride and Nick Swardson. All I can say is that 2011, along with Your Highness, has not been a kind year for Danny McBride. And when considering Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star it hasn't necessarily been Swardson's year-to-remember either.

The premise is cute, the actors are energetic and lively, and some big laughs are achieved. Ultimately, this is the work of a first time screenwriter and instead of working on something much, much easier, he decided to dive into a film with sizable stars with basic skills. I wouldn't mind seeing Jesse Eisenberg and Aziz Ansari in a film together again, in fact, I'd commend it, but hopefully next time they'll be in a film where there is more laughs and less yelling.

Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Aziz Ansari, Danny McBride, Nick Swardson, Fred Ward, and Michael Pena. Directed by: Reuben Fleischer.

While the premise of this film leaves much room for hilarity, as shown by the promising trailer, it was unable to capitalize on this due to what feels like a lackluster effort on the part of the writers. There are many tell-tale indications of this, such as in the inconsistency of the characters. Palpable tension is generated between characters without any warning, and then it is forgotten by the next scene.

Another glaring issue was the pacing of the story. If you saw the trailer, you would think it centered around this bank robbery by two normal guys. However, this is only one small piece of the movie. The opening was simultaneously slow and somewhat insufficient, then everything sped up tremendously, and then the latter half of the film was dragged out to fill up the remaining time needed for the movie to be taken seriously.

In all, I would rate this film a 6.5/10 since it was still entertaining and done by clearly talented actors. However, note that this is far from their best work, probably because the actors were confused about who their characters were.

While some movies boast both an intriguing premise and a strong plot, this particular film failed to capitalize on these potential strengths. Despite its low budget, the execution by the makers and actors left much to be desired, resulting in a poorly made mess. My initial expectations were met with disappointment, even though I approached the movie with a positive mindset on a Saturday night. However, it's not all bleak; there are sporadic moments of comedy and a decent storyline that salvage it from being a complete disaster.

Though the movie may not leave a lasting impression, it does offer some entertainment value, making it suitable for passing the time. While it falls short of greatness, it can serve as a diversion for a laid-back viewing experience.