30 minutes maximum

30 Minutes or Less would go on TV the night, so I decided to watch the movie, but without any expectations, and I ended up liking the film, I thought a lot of fun, the cast is good, Jesse Eisenberg is well, Danny McBride good and funny, Aziz Ansaria this very well, I rather laugh with him, Nick Swardson, Michael Peña, Fred Ward and etc, the script is weak, more has really funny moments, and some fun dialogues, even the majority being uninteresting, the direction of the film is weak and the pace is moderate, I was not bored, most believe it will be very, 30 Minutes or Less is fun, have a good time, plus has a weak script and direction without any inspiration. Note 7.0

I had not heard about this movie prior to finding it on Netflix. I read the synopsis for it, and it seemed like it could be a fun enough movie. So I took the time to sit down and watch it.

And it turned out that "30 Minutes or Less" was actually a rather entertaining comedy spiced up with some action and a fairly good story.

The character's in the movie and the actors and actresses portraying them really helped bring the movie up to a level of proper enjoyment. Usually I am not overly much of a fan of Jesse Eisenberg nor Danny McBride, but they really carried the movie quite nicely. However, it was Aziz Ansari who really stood out as the most memorable of all the cast.

There were some really good laughs and funny moments throughout the course of the storyline.

I will say however that I seriously doubt that this is the type of movie that you watch more than once, unless you are a big fan of anyone on the cast list though.

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.

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.

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!