Well, that was definitely a disappointment. Back then, in 2001, me and my friend raced over who would watch more movies starring (Leslie Nielson) than the other. Yes, not all of his movies were at the same quality, but we loved him as a 70-year-old crazy comedian. Though when it came to this one, we were in shock, and couldn't believe!
The only good Camouflage in here was its propaganda as another comedy from the main star of Hollywood parodies in the 1990s, especially with cartoony opening credits like the Pink Panther movies. (Camouflage) turned out to be (Nielson)'s try to take off the robe of farce which had been cohered to him for quite sometime. But it didn't work. As a serious actor, the movie didn't provide him with nothing serious to perform. And as a comedian, he didn't make fun of (Bogart)'s familiar antics as the typical private detective of the 1940s, or even made something of his own as a parody or else. He stood in a tasteless middle, and I think it's not his fault utterly, it's in that script!
The script strived to be noir comedy, or merely noir about the world's materialism, but the result was uneven, average or less than average, mishmash. I discovered lately that (Billy Bob Thornton) was the story's writer, and the screenplay's co-writer. Although (Thornton) was a writer or co-writer of 8 movies, till now, but this was the only one he made under the name of (Reginald Perry)?! Maybe they messed big time with his work, so he went to the (Alan Smithee) of the writers. Or maybe he noticed late that he delivered something that messy, so went on to remove his name off it. By the way, according to (Thornton)'s performance, in any of his movies, it extremely horrifies me to imagine him participating in writing any kind of comedy!
And they made it R-rated for what exactly? To allure audience by sex jokes, and nudity?! What a cheap way of making movies, or rather earning money! Speaking about cheapness, just look at the movie's poster on the IMDb, with the crooked pistol. This is how to turn off anybody out of your movie. It's scarily poor and unattractive as if done by untalented 7-year-old kid!
So how to define this movie anyway? Hmmm, let's see, it's not a pure comedy, or a black comedy, or a small noir movie, or an action as the IMDb alleges!, or even a parody of anything. OH GOD.. What is it? I'll tell you, it's not a new category; it's a very old one: A "weak" movie!
Most probably the target was making a noir, however after casting (Nielson), the production went to the comic approach. But it ended up as a cross between seriousness and silliness. It has a positive side though, which's being a good example of the bad way of mixing genres!
The only good Camouflage in here was its propaganda as another comedy from the main star of Hollywood parodies in the 1990s, especially with cartoony opening credits like the Pink Panther movies. (Camouflage) turned out to be (Nielson)'s try to take off the robe of farce which had been cohered to him for quite sometime. But it didn't work. As a serious actor, the movie didn't provide him with nothing serious to perform. And as a comedian, he didn't make fun of (Bogart)'s familiar antics as the typical private detective of the 1940s, or even made something of his own as a parody or else. He stood in a tasteless middle, and I think it's not his fault utterly, it's in that script!
The script strived to be noir comedy, or merely noir about the world's materialism, but the result was uneven, average or less than average, mishmash. I discovered lately that (Billy Bob Thornton) was the story's writer, and the screenplay's co-writer. Although (Thornton) was a writer or co-writer of 8 movies, till now, but this was the only one he made under the name of (Reginald Perry)?! Maybe they messed big time with his work, so he went to the (Alan Smithee) of the writers. Or maybe he noticed late that he delivered something that messy, so went on to remove his name off it. By the way, according to (Thornton)'s performance, in any of his movies, it extremely horrifies me to imagine him participating in writing any kind of comedy!
And they made it R-rated for what exactly? To allure audience by sex jokes, and nudity?! What a cheap way of making movies, or rather earning money! Speaking about cheapness, just look at the movie's poster on the IMDb, with the crooked pistol. This is how to turn off anybody out of your movie. It's scarily poor and unattractive as if done by untalented 7-year-old kid!
So how to define this movie anyway? Hmmm, let's see, it's not a pure comedy, or a black comedy, or a small noir movie, or an action as the IMDb alleges!, or even a parody of anything. OH GOD.. What is it? I'll tell you, it's not a new category; it's a very old one: A "weak" movie!
Most probably the target was making a noir, however after casting (Nielson), the production went to the comic approach. But it ended up as a cross between seriousness and silliness. It has a positive side though, which's being a good example of the bad way of mixing genres!