Matt345

This episode is probably the purest form of one of the definitions of Adult Swim "humor", and occasional Family Guy humor and a rather large extent American Dad humor (and also Rick & Morty a little bit). And that is, quite simply, some pretty girl or young woman will be brutally killed at some point, for basically no reason, and with a rather larger probability than anyone else (who would probably survive, unless it's all-out mass-murder which Rick & Morty episodes usually include - however with less "relish"). It happens fairly randomly, and like it's the smallest non-event. She may briefly be someone's girlfriend. Here two female "clones" are created to serve as girlfriends, to then be both killed with less than zero empathy and for no reason (but that it's what Stan does if he learns of clones). And one wonders what the "gag" is about it, but it supposedly is one.

I've already been aware of this many years ago completely on my own and I usually spare no thought on the "political correctness" of some entertainment. I simply always found this off-putting and dumb. (Indeed it seems to me nobody else has noticed it.)

This is a difficult movie to rate, at least in an honest, personal way. The chosen story is not a typical Hollywood story, as partly dictated by life, although it is partly told like one, and has some typical "cinematic" appeals, primarily in the car races, of course. The main tension comes from team Ferrari trying to win against the evil Maserati Team, in order to save the company from bankruptcy. This is told very well and one is genuinely invested, although here it is still very misleading to expect a straightforward Hollywood story.

The quarrels with Enzo Ferrari's wife, played by Penélope Cruz (arguably appearing younger here than the aged-up Adam Driver), come across as rather melodramatic, though I suppose there is a similarity to what the real relationship was. The casting of Adam Driver is inspired, as it makes it more likely that the audience will root for the main character. As a non-Italien speaker, I would say his artifical accent is okay, although it is clearly not perfect. No matter. Enzo Ferrari here is a good "character", in the movie sense (and not judging in a moral or other way).

It would be far off the mark to call this a fun movie. There are echoes of war experiences (primarily WWI) over the movie, aside from the wound that the loss of their son has left. The large glasses that Ferrari nearly always wears give the movie a funereal tone, I don't know if this detail was an intentional part of it, but eventually this is how it comes across.

After reading a little bit, it appears they took some freedom with one of the drivers and main side-characters joins the Ferrari team, as a nobody who turns up out of nowhere, and this seems to serve to tell his story in a little more clichéd way. There are often senses of foreboding, but the movie is at the same time pretty good at misdirecting from them or pushing them aside. Part of this is due to making one see everything strongly from Enzo Ferrari's perspective and his goals.

There are definitely strong parts in this movie, but ultimately it is almost told in a "slice of life" way, so that there won't be some grand resolution, although it ends at a fitting point. The directing in this movie is very good, although I have some issues with how hard it is tell anyone apart in the races, like literally sometimes I didn't know who the good guys or bad guys were, simply in terms of visual clues. This is good, high-quality movie making, that feels enriching later, but don't expect to feel happy from this. I want to give this something like a 6 or 7, so I'll round it up, and it deserves it to make aware of its qualities (the craftsmanship, Adam Driver as the main character, some real impact etc).

The main draw is clearly Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly as Holmes and Watson and the actors playing off each other. This mostly works and is entertaining to watch, so one can be satisfied. Will Ferrell is very good at speaking in a pretentious, pseudo-intellectual fake British way, while maintaining his overall trademark stupidity. John C. Reilly is the perfect match as the humble, fawning buddy Watson, who dreams of being fully recognised as his "Co-Detective", but can also have pompous manners in his role as a Doctor.

The humour must be called stupid, but this is true also of 75%-100% of jokes in movies which count as way better, either just relative in ratings, or as truly good. I would dare anyone to enlist all the intelligent moments and lines that made them appreciate the actors in comedies. The truth is, the humour is pretty much the standard one gets anywhere, but I would say still more successful on average and fluid than in many other comedies. Something about it feels like genuine jokes among friends, and associative but still poignant (there is never a tedious improvisional feel), although the dialogue also features some effective use of old vocabulary.

One of the main visual jokes or running gags (and as one might have hoped) is probably the imitation of the slow-mo analysis and "calculations" of actions in an inner monologue, full of diagrams and rare words, in a similar manner to Robert Downey Jr.'s Sherlock Holmes, directed by Guy Ritchie. Not all of those sequences are equally good, but they are overall fun and exactly what they needed to do, given the premise.

One of my favourite scenes is Watson trying to speak like a "real doctor" to a woman doctor. (There is nothing meaningful about it, it's just funny.) Hilarious is also one game of chess between Holmes and Watson.

Something off-putting might be the overall grime and vulgarity of the setting, e.g. When they go to the docks, and some jokes are just genuine crap (like one scene of "romance"). But that is also not a special problem, nor does it overshadow everything else. The story also isn't particularly cleverly executed and the overall structure is pure Hollywood cliché. But some scenes are praisworthy at least in looking properly historical.

I would guess that not a small part of the hate comes from two short moments of dialogue, one where UK and US government systems are compared, and there are casual references to Trump getting elected (by using the words "trumped-up", showman and business man), and one even more forced and awkward line about getting true justice. (By "a jury of white property-owners" - but one has to understand this is still just a slight self-irony, not a critique, in the context of criticizing something else as injustice.) Someone might hate them for supposedly being an attempt to make the comedy more "relevant" or satirical, while many more probably simply hate a casual shot against Trump. I personally think those lines are too casual and minor to matter overall, and they probably haven't been worked on much.

Every once in a while, a work, in any medium, gets a full blow of hate and hypocrisy, over things that are either not much different or no worse than some other, ignored nonsense elsewhere. I think this is one of those works. It delivers its "stupid humour" in a more entertaining way than many other comedies which get a pass or many laughs.