Very good, but is it two ideas bolted together?

Rating: 8/10 (18 February 2007)

First let me say that I do think this is one of the best comedy films I have seen in a long time. It is well made, interesting and enjoyable, and I applaud what Pegg and Wright are doing for the British film industry. Pegg has made some great fresh TV, and is now transferring his talents well to the big screen.
However, no film is above criticism, and the unanimous barrage of praise that is flooding forward about this movie makes me worry that it is simply trendy to like it. Pegg himself admits that it has flaws and he and Wright spent a long time trying to get the logic of the film to work. In places that logic does fall down.
Firstly the Nick Angel character is not particularly likable, he is a jobsworth with no apparent human weaknesses, but we are supposed to identify with him as the hero. Danny is a more likable and human character.
Some of the jokes about country vs. city are a bit predictable and rely on stereotypes about backwards country types. I am sure that South Gloucestershire is not that backward! Then there is the sudden change of style and pace halfway through which is a bit jarring. The first half is a comedy of reality, that is the comedy comes from strange people in situations that could be real, and the laughs come from the character interactions.
I am surprised many people say they laughed hard all the way through the movie, because in the first half there are relatively few big laughs. It is a subtle style of comedy that brings a gentle smile rather than a laugh. I saw it on opening night in a packed cinema and was listening for audience reaction, and I counted only 2 or 3 big laughs in the first hour and a half.
Half way through the movie suddenly enters the world of surreal, slapstick, spoof comedy, and the pace takes off, and the big laughs come. The Angel character goes from being a serious character to a man spoofing the likes of Clint Eastwood and Mel Gibson. Yes it is very funny and well observed, but does it fit with the first half of the movie? Most of us are intelligent enough to realise that the gun violence is meant to be cartoonish and ironic, but will everybody realise that? Is it right to get laughs from gun violence in the current political climate in the UK? Having said all that these are just nit-picking points, and the film is certainly miles better than a lot of other lame comedies around, and works on a lot of levels. I just wish they would have stuck to one style all the way through instead of bolting two ideas together.