30 minutes maximum

There are plenty of bad puns to be had with the title of this movie, but the cheesiest and most appropriate I can offer after watching it is "83 Minutes Long and Still a Mess." In the age of the three-hour comedy, I thought it would be a relief to watch a laugher with a tighter belt. Unfortunately, even with the fast title, Less dragged on much longer than I wished it to.

Less seems like a half-a**ed debacle, where everyone including the Captain jumped ship when they felt the movie sinking. The direction, if you can call it that, was done by Ruben Fleischer, who couldn't have possibly given his maximum effort on this film. His recent film success was directing the 2009 film Zombieland, which was a taut and intriguing comedy. Zombieland had a less original premise than Less, but consistently provided laughter and a few tense action sequences. Less similarly attempts to combine action and comedy, but provides an extremely flat and jumbled film.

The writing is slovenly. There are cheap laughs aplenty, and even a few good belly-busters, but laughter is inevitable when you try and force a joke every single line of the movie. My question is, why did the writers, and director for that matter, keep the crap that didn't stick to the wall? Watching Less felt like watching a movie shot in one take before it hits the editing room; so many intended jokes fall flat and fail to register. Even lazier than the joke writing is the character writing. Of course Less is a comedy, and an intentionally stupid one at that. Viewers shouldn't go in expecting to see detailed character development a la Mad Men; I certainly didn't. But the characters in Less change personalities and character traits on a whim and at an alarming rate.

In the movie's first scene, we see Jesse Eisenberg's character Nick, calmly and deliberately con two teenagers out of 40 dollars. But, after the first ten minutes of the movie, even before he gets the bomb/plot device strapped on his chest (which admittedly would make anyone change their disposition), he turns into a manic motormouth. The most offensive and unexplained character shift is that of the amateur criminal Travis, played by Nick Swardson (who in a side note needs to find a new agent after agreeing to star in the upcoming guaranteed bomb Bucky Larson. Find the trailer if you haven't seen it already; I almost clawed my eyes out in the theater seeing it before Less). Travis starts out as a complete imbecile, seemingly unable to think independently. Then, throughout the movie, Travis tries on about three or four different personalities before Swardson gives up altogether. And with writing that uneven, who could blame him?

Aziz Ansari predictably throws down the best performance in Less, and not simply by default. Unlike his stand-up comedy, which is a consistently high-pitched freight train of energy, Ansari is able to give his Chet character a dynamism I didn't expect from him. Sure, there are plenty of squeaky outbursts, but he knows that the outburst seems louder and more hilarious if there is a calm before the detonation. Ansari is the only actor relishing the gags, but unfortunately is fed plenty of misfired jokes by the writers as well. Danny McBride, deservedly renowned for his Kenny Powers character on HBO's Eastbound and Down, seems content to cash the paycheck and move on. He plays Dwayne, a much less funny Powers reprise, whose bumbling criminal character the writers mistakenly believe we care about. They inexplicably allow the movie to take a plot turn into his domain, yet the audience could care less what fate awaits him.

Good comedy shouldn't be as strenuous a venture as it is watching 30 Minutes or Less. Luckily, we all live in the internet age, and while I no longer have this option, you can save your ticket money and watch Aziz Ansari stand-up videos on YouTube instead.

For my other movie reviews, visit http://scottsdoublefeature.blogspot.com

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

The second feature film from Zombieland director Ruben Fleischer (but not the same film's writers) is ostensibly an "original" comedy, but borrows heavily from the true case of a pizza delivery guy who got kidnapped by two crooks, strapped with a bomb and forced to go and rob a bank. In his case it was not a comedy at all, and the guy did die (the bomb was also strapped to his head, kind of a different and more f***ed-up scenario this film wouldn't touch even if it could try). But for Fleischer and company, who needs to make it all dramatic? Or even make much sense in terms of plot?

The movie carries its moments, mostly through improvisation (or what would appear to be just going off on small tangents by actors like Danny McBride and Jesse Eisenberg, the latter the pizza guy who gets the bomb strapped to him by McBride and his co-hort). And there were even those few moments where I found myself laughing hard at the actors' repore, especially when Eisenberg and Aziz Ansari get into a good groove riffing off each other about, say, their foolishness in messing each other's respective ex-girlfriends and/or sisters. And the actual bank robbery carries some real thrills (if capped by a mediocre car chase aided by some weak 80's car-chase parody).

Ultimately I couldn't get over how needlessly complicated the plot was in McBride's plot to knock off his father, played by Fred Ward (who actually steals his scenes completely as a crazed ex-Major who won the lottery), as a plot to make millions comes down to a pizza delivery boy. Perhaps if Elmore Leonard was brought in for a rewrite it could've been made brilliant.

As it stands it's a stupid story perked up by a stupid series of comic-suspense set-pieces as Eisenberg and Anzari prepare for the robbery. For some the crazy hijinks will be enough. For me, it could have done a lot more, despite the principal cast members doing their best to bring it up to something better.

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.