"Get Smart"

Saw the new movie reincarnation of "Get Smart" at the family reunion.

Rating 57.

Is it fair for a person to review a movie when the person LOVED the TV show (as I did the original "Get Smart" with Don Adams and Baraara Feldon).  Probably not, since the movie is never going to seem as good.  However, that kind of thing has never stopped me before.

There was virtually unanimous opinion at the faminly reunion that this movie is, in fact, NOT as god as the old TV series (among those familiar with the old TV series).  I will say that most liked the movie a little better than I did, although mainly agreeing with the criticisms I have.

The basic problem with the movie, as with the new adaptations of "Mission Impossible" and "Bewitched,  is that the movie merely ussed catch phrases and the idea of a "spy spoof" from the original TV series, without really wanting to recreate a screen version of the TV series.  Thus, the "Mission Impossible" series has been a mere action series, without the CEREBRAL idea and feel of the original series.  I gave "Mission Impossible III" a 25 rating, and I assure you that is not too low.  More importantly for this point, the BEST part of MI3 was the part that invoked the feel of the olf TV series (in the first half of the movie).  The last half, where a "Mission Impossilbe" type "plan" was abaondoned, in favor of specail effects and "action hero stupidity" (a phrase I am coining here for the syndrome of having an action hero do totallly stupid, even immoral, things with the idea that the audience does not care so long as they get their action sequences and special effets).  "Bewtiched", of course, just abandoned the original series completely in favor of a stupid twist on the old concept.  I think this has to do with ARROGANCE of movie makers today not wanting to be bound by the "old fashioned" stuff, and wanting to put a modern "edge" on it.

This "Mission Impossible" debacle is more than relevant on the "Get Smart" movie.  That is because the film makers went the wrong direction.  They decided to make "Mission Imppossible III", WITH JOKES. rather than do the broad farce of the original TV series.  Thus, you have a convential, unoriginal action storty, with basically SERIOUS characters (including Maxwell Smart and Agent 99), onto which has been attached some of the "catch phrases" of the origianl TV series and way too subtle a spoof of action spy movies.  "Would you believe ("Would you believe Chuck Norris with a bb gun"), "sorry about that, chief", and "missed it by THAT much"are thus all there, but without the FEEL of the original.

Yes, there are sometimes amusing attempts to parody action movies.  The "Jaws" sequence from a James Bond movie (falling without a parachute) was recreated vitually action scene by action scene in this movie, with some comic twists.  Problem:  that James Bond movie was virtually a PARODY in itself of earlier James Bond movies, as the James Bond movies with Roger Moore incorporated a lot of FARCE elements, and the James Bond movie may have been FUNNIER. 

Similarly, at one point a villain askes why they are blowing up a building, and no one can give a logical answer.  However, Mission Impossible III was like that for the entire last half of the movie.  It made no sense at all.  You cannot parody a movie by repeating today's excesses in action movies, because they parody themselves.  It just is not funny.  The explosions, and special effects, are the PURPOSE of those movies, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that "Get Smart" is trying to have it both ways:  to BE one of those action movies, while trying to parody it. 

The "Austin Powers" movies, with their broad farce, are more true to the spirit of the "Get Smart" TV show than is this movie.  I would give the first "Austin Powers" movie an 87, and it was the movie this one should have been.  In fact, the gimmick of that movie would have been a better way to do this movie (by having Maxwell Smart somehow transported into th future).  Instead, you have the "origin" of Maxwell Smart as some sort of nerdish "analyst" wanting to be a "field agent".  This pretty much eliminated the broad farce aspects of bumbling Don Adams as a super-stupid, bumbling incompetent being mothered by a bemused, competent Barbara Feldon. 

Steve Carell looks a lot like Don Adams.  However, he plays the role more like Buster Keaton (the "great stone face").  This fits in with the character he has previously played and become famous for (an actual person not acting, rather than an actor playing a part).  It does not fit well with the broad, physical comedy of Don Adams, or the broad, farce timing in that confused, but arrogant, nasal whine.  Anne Hathaway does a perfectly good performance as an action movie heroine, but lacks the MATERNAL warmth of Barbara Feldon and the broad body language. 

Then there is the attempt to put a 21st Cenutry "edge" on this movie that hurts it badly (unless you are dealing twith an "Austin Powers" displacement out of time).  There is the bathroom type humor.  There is the homosexual humor, including Max kissing a man (somewhat funny, but not really within the "feel" of the original or even the "feel" of this movie--just thrown in for "edge").

Internet Movie Database gives this movie a 75 (7.5 on its 10 scale).  I give it a 57 (on my scale of 100, where I rate the first "Austin Powers" movie an 87, and the sequels highter than "Get Smart").    Is my rating too low, however, because no movie could come up to my rose colored memories of the original TV series.  Possibly.  The criticisms are nevertheless valid.

There are enough funny moments, in an action polot better than MI3 (not saying much), that I believe this movie is one of those movies interesting enough to see, even though the ratiing is below 60 (that is, merely in the top 44% of all movies made).  I don't recommend it highly, however.  The members of my family did generally rate it higher than I do, although not as highly as Internet Movie Database raters (where 7 is abpve a GOOD rating--often a very good to excellent movie gets a rating no higher).