When movies are based on a well-known TV series, the two criteria they have to fill out are whether they satisfy fans of the series and satisfy those who’ve never seen the TV series and accept it on its own terms.
In the case of ‘Get Smart’, as a major fan of the original TV series (which has had enduring appeal over the years in Australia) I was able to judge it on both counts. The TV series was a satirical spoof of the plethora of the spy movies of its era; it’s underlying premise concerned the ‘good guys’ at CONTROL led by bumbling agent Maxwell Smart (played by Don Adams in the TV series, Steve Carell in the movie) and his faithful female sidekick Agent 99 (Barbara Feldon on TV, Anne Hathaway in the movie) attempting to stop the dastardly evil doings of KAOS. The film more or less recreates this basic plot structure, although in the detail there are significant differences.
On the positive side, GS is reasonably successful as a comedy. That’s in part to the script which while being no classic by any stretch, does have its moments of wit and at times generally carries the right light-hearted tone.
But its comic success is largely attributable to the central performance of Steve Carell; if he hadn’t worked the film would’ve been a disaster but he manages to salvage it with a dead-on performance. The descriptions I’ve read that he’s half-impersonating Adams and half-doing his own thing are pretty apt; he shows due reverence to the original character but does enough to make it his own and most importantly (like Adams) is able to create humour from very little by underplaying situations where most would overact. He’s a fine talent.
Also, one criticism of the film that I can’t really fathom is that Carell’s version of Maxwell Smart is more intelligent then Adams’ version. In an era where movie ‘heroes’ are so often obnoxious morons, I think it’s refreshing that the filmmakers didn’t go down the path of turning Max into a semi-Neanderthal.
The supporting cast is a mixed bag. Anne Hathaway and Dwayne Johnson are solid in their key supporting roles but Alan Arkin as the Chief doesn’t really hit the mark. David Koechner is as one-note as he’s been in every film I’ve seen him in and Terry Crews is prominently billed, but does absolutely nothing of note.
Whatever strengths the film has, I don’t think much credit can be taken by director Peter Segal. I’ve never been a fan of his work and only a few comic set pieces (a ‘dance off’ between Max and 99, Smart trying to eavesdrop on a conversation in a toilet, Smart trying to avoid laser beams) really hit the spot. But his great weaknesses are his uninteresting and incoherent handling of the action scenes and the misguided way he handles the plot. As fans of the TV series would know, the plots on the original would be full of absurd comedy and satirical elements but none of that is present here. Instead its treated in a far too serious and heavy-handed fashion (and isn’t that interesting to begin with); when the plot and action took over I lost interest.
And that misguided style filters down to the central villain, Siegfried. In the TV series he was played to the hilt by Bernie Kopell (who has a brief cameo here) as a comic buffoon. In this film, he’s played with boring earnestness by Terence Stamp (echoes of Malcolm McDowell’s endless array of ‘bad guy’ performances in recent years) and it falls completely flat.
Its this tone that prevents me from fully liking the film. I would’ve been able to forgive its patchy comedy if it had a likable, light and jaunty style like the series; instead it’s too often bombastic and excessive (as if it was justifying its budget) as is the case with so many modern-day mainstream Hollywood films. If they make a sequel (which it’s clearly set itself up for) then hopefully they use a better director.
Despite many opportunities being missed, this is marginally above average and better than I expected. And at least it’s better than ‘The Nude Bomb’.
I saw it too, and didn’t quite like it as much as you did. I’ve never seen the series, however.
You’re definitely right about Segal. If you’ve ever watched Tommy Boy and thought to yourself, “You know, I’d really like to see what this director could do with big action sequences,” then this is the movie for you. Ebert’s review talks about how well put-together the movie is in technical terms – just as good as a new Bond film – and I have to wonder how he arrived at that conclusion. Unless he’s limiting his comparison exclusively to the last couple Brosnan Bonds, which would not be a favorable comparison in any case.
I’m a fan of Carell, but found him somewhat wrong for this part. I think he needs to play a character with a bit more grounding than this to be successful. And so some of his scenes were very good, but some are not so successful, like the endless scene in the plane lavatory with the spear gun, or pretty much any scene that required buffoonery from him (e.g., “I cramped up!”). He just doesn’t do these things very well. In fairness to him, these were the weaker parts of the script.
Overall, I thought it had its moments here and there, and Hathaway somehow emerges from this looking like she’ll be the biggest movie star of her generation, if she’s not already. But it’s at the very bottom of the “Just OK” spectrum.
Folks like Portman and ScarJo get the press, but Hathaway probably has the best track record of any actress (under 30) since Julia Roberts.
I’m not really even talking in terms of box office as much as actual screen presence. I don’t know if Hathaway has a ton of range, exactly, although she was decent in Brokeback Mountain. But she definitely has a very natural movie-star way about her. A lot like Julia Roberts, really, or at least Julia Roberts ca. 1991.
I’d forgotten about the bit in the plane toilet. You’re right that didn’t really come off; in fact the entire scene on the plane fell flat.
I was just thinking that this film reminded me quite a bit of the ‘I Spy’ movie starring Eddie Murphy and Owen Wilson from a few years back. That was also based on a 1960s TV series, had some amusing moments and good banter between the two stars but was badly let down by a boring plot, boring villain (McDowell naturally) and a mediocre director. And it also had a mechanical feel to it which was totally out of whack with the original TV series (which I haven’t seen in this case). GS was slightly better overall of the two.
That’s a great point, Wagstaff, about I Spy. They’re fairly similar movies. I don’t understand why I Spy was critically mauled (16% RT) while this one has fared so much better (52%). I haven’t seen I Spy since its release but remember thinking it was decent.
Just checking over the wikipedia entry for ‘I Spy’ (hadn’t seen it for a couple of years), the similarities are even more pronounced then I thought:
- large chunk of film set in country formerly under the “Iron Curtain”
- central character is a spy (Carell/Wilson) who doesn’t get much respect from his organisation especially in comparison with a charismatic star spy colleague (Gary Cole/Dwayne Johnson)
(spoiler warning)
- bad guys are looking to obtain nuclear weapons with the aim of setting off one of the bombs on a major US city
- prominently billed ‘good guy’ turns out to be a ‘bad guy’ in the latter stages of the film
It’s almost pronounced enough that it’s worth sending something to Wells (who I recall was quite favourable towards ‘I Spy’ ) mentioning this similarity.
I think I’m with Brian on this one, although I couldn’t even get past the first hour. This is as clear an example of a “strike movie” (which it was) as you can get. Guarantee all parties would have insisted on multiple re-writes if they hadn’t rushed into production.
Looking back, I think I was a bit overgenerous on this film. Several months on I have an increasingly negative attitude towards the film and I really wouldn’t want to see it again.
I think this change in attitude is in part because I’ve recently purchased the DVDs of the original Get Smart TV series and they just underlined how good a show it was and what a wasted opportunity the movie is.