So, I went to see IN THE LOOP with my friend Jake, and from the time it premiered at SIFF many months ago I had heard nothing but rave reviews, including one from The Stranger who called it "the natural successor to DR. STRANGELOVE." (Misquoted, but the idea is right.) Basically, EVERY SINGLE REVIEWER LOVED THIS MOVIE, which I find shocking, because it really, really sucked. The main problem with this movie is the tone: there isn't one. They shot the entire movie like an episode of THE OFFICE, complete with two cameras and a plethora of unnecessary zooms. There is not a single cinematic moment (and by cinematic I mean using the camera to help tell the story), and the editor was apparently content to merely cut from one camera to the other--FOR THE ENTIRE MOVIE. The style of humor is also lifted from THE OFFICE (if you close your eyes you can practically hear Ricky Gervais in every line that Tom Hollander delivers), and the glib attitude undercuts any attempt at actual social commentary.
The dialogue suffers from a similar tonal problem--I call it the JUNO Syndrome--which is that every character speaks like every other character (and therefore they all speak like the screenwriter, who should not be a character), and as a result you really don't give a rat's ass about anyone. When generals, senators, and low-level aides all sound like the same person, you have a problem on your hands. The only character who comes close to actually being a character the spin doctor, played with laser-gazed ferocity by Scottish actor Peter Capaldi (the tenderhearted polyglot from LOCAL HERO), but even his remarkable performance gets buried under the weight of the shoddy filmmaking.I could go on and on and on and on about what is wrong with this movie, but any attempt to further delineate it's problems would be a waste of everyone's time. Suffice it to say that if you want solid political satire, stick with STRANGELOVE, and avoid IN THE LOOP like the plague.
