Film Review: Three And Out
April 10, 2008
Three And Out
What’s it about?
After accidentally mowing down two tube passengers London underground driver Paul (Mackenzie Crook) is soon tempted by the little known rule that if he racks up three fatalities in one month then he will be retired early with a handsome compensation payment.
Is it any good?
The movie had me groaning from the start as a cheap gag, which I hope was an homage to 70’s cinema, was thrown into the audience. Do you remember back in the day there was a running gag about the black guy dying first in movies?…you do? The gag quickly wore thin after a spate of films in which the appearance of a black guy on screen at the start of a flick was usually code for “ the first victim we have wheeled out for your delectation and a grisly death is contestant number one.”
Well, what do you know, it’s 2008 and this gag, to my horror, is still being rolled out as entertainment. No sooner do we see a black guy with a frisky dog, flanked by his two friends striding down a tube platform, you’ve guessed it “the first victim we have wheeled….”
You’ll remember this bit:
This is the most laziest,vacuous and talentless bit of filmmaking I’ve had the displeasure to view in a longtime. Billed as a comedy it is the blueprint on how to alienate your audience. The majority of gags have a homophobic undertone which in my book is a cheap antiquated mechanism that clearly illustrates a lack of imagination.
Paul is desperate to find a willing participant to his get rich scheme. After visiting the home of one of them and gratefully eating a pretty large sausage it soon transpires that, whilst his host would like to die, it’s his wish that he be eaten alive. Cue a swift exit by our hero who is then repeatedly badgered via his mobile phone by his former host with cries of “why don’t you come and eat me?” and “do you want my sausage?” A word to the director, first rule of comedy be funny, second rule of comedy be very funny.
Unfortunately my most memorable moments of last nights press screening had nothing to do with the film, which I eventually walked out of. My memorable moment occured before the film commenced. As is customary at press screenings held in swanky hotels we were treated to exceptionally expensive wine…the red was absolutely gorgeous and so smooth. Just to let you know how awful this film really was, lets just say I would rather have this excellent red beverage poured into my opened eyes than sit through such tripe again.
Dear Mr. Morgan
I have been directed to your website by a colleague who, like me, is weary of the freedom afforded by the internet for the publication of opinions by people who are entitled to them by reason only of their liberty. While your right to be wrong should be defended unto death (and I am sure you would expect nothing less of society’s obligations to you) your website and the poorly-written, uninformed and intellectually vapid nonsense to which you appear happy to attach your name, is an utter disgrace.
You are typical of many people today who, having achieved little in life, feel entitled regardless to pour scorn over those who attempt to do otherwise. Instead of actually creating something worthy yourself, you sit in your bedsit and prattle on about a subject on which you are no better informed than the below-average cinema-goer. You do not review books, or theatre, or music, or architecture, or art, or for that matter anything else that requires an education or insight. You typify, therefore, the ugly face of democracy, whereby every non-entity with a PC believes his opinion matters when, quite obviously, it is relevant only to its arrogant and self-absorbed source.
I do not wish to undermine you personally, Mr. Morgan, but you should know that the opinion of a blind man of a sunset is of no interest to anyone. Leave the world of film to those who know something about it, and who have the wit to articulate their insights without insulting both the art and the artist.
I trust this finds you well.
Sincerely,
Matthew Boyden
Matthew,
Many thanks for your comments and the candid way in which you have set out your observation on my “straight no chaser” delivery. I’m a little baffled as to what you would expect from my site which clearly states its purpose in its masthead.
It’s a shame that your comment appears to be peppered with inacuracies as to my personal standpoint, authority on the subject at hand and my…living conditions.
Without meaning to digress any further I’d like to hear your views on the films which you feel I have perhaps misinterpreted. Feel free to be as expressive as you have been so far. I look forward to your comments which we can use as a basis for intelligent conversation.
Mathew Boyden. What are you on about? Are you related to the Director? Comment like’You are typical of many people today who, having achieved little in life, feel entitled regardless to pour scorn over those who attempt to do otherwise. Instead of actually creating something worthy yourself, you sit in your bedsit and prattle on about a subject on which you are no better informed than the below-average cinema-goer, & ‘Leave the world of film to those who know something about it? Snobish comments like these are best left in your narrow mind. Stick to the film in question ( and leave the pipe alone!!!)
Dear Mr Johnson
My comments were directed to Mr. Morgan, but thank you for repeating them. I wasn’t being snobbish, whatever that means. My observation was animated specifically by the comments your friend made about Three and Out. I have no interest in that film, and certainly know nothing of the director. You may read my reply to that posted by Mr. Morgan should you wish to take an interest in the dialogue.
Sincerely,
Matthew Boyden
Matthew,
Have you seen Three and Out? If so please let me know your views?
Michael
Dear Mr. Morgan
Thank you for your reply. I was directed to your website by a friend who cares more about these things than I do. However, I take very seriously the critic’s responsibility not to abuse his freedom of his speech. I have a particular interest in this responsibility, for various reasons, and I resent intellectually and aesthetically your comments about Three and Out. I propose you revise them accordingly.
The least you are owed is an explanation, so I would submit to you the following:
You have a duty as a self-publicist – and I mean this literally rather than disparagingly – to represent to the best of your abilities (1) the truth of the project about which you are writing, and (2) the sum of your reflections on it. Consequently, you are not at liberty morally to lie about what you thought, any more than you are entitled to trash an achievement the virtue of which escapes you by reason of your apathy and incompetence. Of course, you may not have produced and/directed your own films yet because of prior engagements, and when your diary allows you the opportunity, I am certain you will be knocking films out to rival Wiene and Cronenberg.
My point, therefore, is that if you are to hold yourself out as a critic – and that is a burden you have chosen to share with your readers – then you have to approach your responsibility in the light of the massive inequality that separates you as the producer of lazy diatribes from the dozens of talented, capable and committed individuals who have made a film. You may not like it – and that much is obvious – but what entitles you to write such things as “This is the most laziest, vacuous and talentless bit of filmmaking I’ve had the displeasure to view in a longtime” is anyone’s guess.
Consider the following:
As an absolute, the word ‘laziest’ cannot be qualified. It is either the laziest or it is not. Therefore the word ‘most’ is as redundant as your web-site. Secondly, the word ‘longtime’ is, in fact, two words – ‘long’ and ‘time’. You probably consider such details to be pedantic; I do not, and if you wish to level such idiotic and poorly expressed criticism at people who take risks and manifest through their endeavours the investment of time and talent then you must do so knowing that you have no right to address with such disregard people who are by definition more deserving of respect than you.
I cannot be bothered to tear the arse out of your review(s), but what you wrote of Three and Out is undeserving of the people who made the film, and warrants an apology. I have not seen, and am unlikely ever to see the film, but if you feel equipped to attack a film’s ‘lack of imagination’ then consider what such an opinion says of you – someone who has never done anything with his life save scoff at the achievements of others.
I am not suggesting you raise the bar – I doubt you can – and I am not advocating for a moment that your web-site aspires to the attainment of Philip French, or Clive James, but you could try just a little harder. You might well be an idiot, but you mustn’t assume the same of your audience. Finally, I would ask you to reflect on this one single fact: anyone who leaves a film early and commits himself to publishing a review of it is but a hemorrhoid bubbling at the stinking orifice of his own stunted pleasure. I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Matthew Boyden
Matthew,
Many thanks for your reply.
I take issue with your assertion that my commentary is based on lies. In the cold light of day and on reflection perhaps my review was too lenient.
To cut to the chase and to quote Steve Biko…I write what I like. It’s an ethos that applies equally to my television and radio work.
It is a real shame that you have not seen Three and Out as we could have really progressed this dialogue. A real shame. Perhaps when it opens we can continue this discussion, or maybe you may care to return to this site tomorrow when I give a “straight no chaser” opinion of Death Defying Acts.
Kind regards,
Michael
Dear Mr. Morgan
You have misread my letter. It does not accuse you of lying. If you read it again, you will see that I was drawing a parallel between your obligation to be as truthful to the project as to yourself. As for Three and Out, I do not need to see it in order to know that your review tells me little on which I might base my decision to buy a ticket. It communicates nothing, and reveals more of your prejudice than it does about the script, the dramatic narrative, the quality of the acting, the skill of the cinematography etc. For you to accuse the film-makers of laziness is staggering, since you couldn’t be bothered yourself either to remain seated during the screening, or to write a review worth reading.
Are you getting any of this? Do you understand what I am saying?
Why would I want a ‘straight no chaser’ review, whatever that is supposed to mean, when there are writers willing to invest time and intelligence producing opinions of insight and reflection.
Sincerely,
Matthew Boyden
Matthew you sound like a shambling drunkard of a man stuck in the Dickensian era. Your purple prose and disrespect have no jurisdiction here.
You are typical of sychophantic critics patting each other on their humped backs for decades of guff in both print and radio.
As you clearly do not like this site do us all a favour and get off down the Bingo.
Matthew,
If reviews delivered “straight no chaser” is not what your looking for perhaps you are in the wrong place.
I’m growing pretty weary of your off topic rants so please…let’s stick to discussing films.
Dear ‘Stryker’
I am to take criticism from someone who wishes to be known as ‘Stryker’? Have you any idea how hilarious that is, and how sad it makes you appear? Seriously, I am not kidding.
Dickens would have laughed his arse off at the lot of you.
Sincerely,
Matthew Boyden
Dear Mr. Morgan
My ‘rants’ could hardly have been more ‘on topic’. They concerned criticism and judgment. Your web-site wants for both.
And be assured, I was only ever visiting.
As the poet said, the only good thing about standing in shit is that you can wipe it from your shoes.
Keep up the good work.
Sincerely,
Matthew Boyden
What I think Matthew is trying to say, if a bit long-windedly, is that your review is too general. I’d like know more specifics about what you didn’t like.
I agree that homophobic humor is a cheap laugh, but it would be nice to list one or two gags so that the reader gets a clearer idea, for example. It makes the site more useful to someone who’s trying to figure out whether they want to see a movie. It could help you, too. If you provide more in-depth analysis on the site, you might get more hits, assuming that’s your goal.
Otherwise, why not just rate the movie with stars? Your review above doesn’t provide much more information than that anyway, and it would save you time.
Just an observation from someone who reads sites like yours before heading to the movies.
Hey Sophie,
Thank you for your comments which I’ll take on board immediately. Have another look at the review.
Dear Sophie
While I would take issue with your allegation of long-windedness, I think your comments are spot on.
I have now seen the film, and will be posting a review of it shortly. My first, and almost certainly my last…
Best wishes,
Matthew Boyden
Three and Out: A Review
Three and Out is a marketing nightmare. Its pitch is simple: a tube driver runs down by accident, and on separate occasions, two Underground passengers. He is told by his colleagues that should he run down a third within the month he will be pensioned off with ten years’ salary. This device, which appears to have caused splenetic rage among the tunnel-dwelling folk at ASLEF, is nothing more than that – it is the narrative trigger that sets the film in motion. But it is such a powerful trigger that almost everybody has failed to notice, or comment upon, the beautifully crafted drama that rises above it. The marketing is to blame, in part, since the posters and the advertising have sought generally to concentrate on the comedy rather than the tragedy that is the movie’s heart; even if it’s easy to see why the producers emphasised in their promotion of the film the laughs at the expense of the tears, it is the latter response which remains when the credits role.
The tube-driver (‘Paul Callow’) is played (by the weasel-faced McKenzie Crook) as a loser, with few prospects, and unattainable dreams of a life of isolation as a writer in the Scottish highlands. He is seen more than once staring blankly at the title of his debut novel ‘Love Song for a Lost Generation’. Inevitably, Paul resolves to locate victim number three so that he can get out of London and away from his miserable existence. He stumbles on a suicidal vagrant (‘Tommy Cassidy’, played to perfection by Colm Meaney) who agrees to Paul’s proposal that he allow himself to be run over in return for £1,500, and a weekend’s indulgence. Instead of drinking or gambling it away, Tommy decides instead to visit his wife and daughter, whom he hasn’t seen in eight years.
This sets in motion a peculiarly British road movie. Despite the intervention of various unnecessary cameos, it is the relationship between Tommy and his family, and ultimately Tommy and Paul, that raises the film above the ordinary. Tommy has wasted his years, and he determines to redeem himself by doing what he can to prevent Paul from making the same mistake. In particular, Tommy’s return to the wife and child he abandoned results in some beautifully judged drama. Meaney is exceptional as Tommy, managing without strain to effect convincingly the old rogue’s charm without ever descending into cliché, and Imelda Staunton as Tommy’s wife Rosemary constructs perfectly the complexity of her reaction to Tommy’s reappearance. The gradual thawing of her hostility is a master-class in screen-acting, and the deliberate pacing of their scenes together is capped with two episodes of such exquisite poignancy that one regrets palpably the marketing of the film as a comedy.
Gemma Arterton might have been expected to struggle in the shadows of such seasoned professionals, but she triumphs as Tommy and Rose’s damaged but head-strong daughter Frankie; the director Jonathan Gershfield portrays her shattered relationship with her father with intelligence and insight, and he pulls off also a fling between Frankie and Paul that would have been unthinkable in any other universe.
The film’s conclusion is deeply affecting, and the final five minutes have an emotional intensity, and play out with a conviction, wholly atypical of British cinema. There is real substance here, and the film’s gentle probing of the philosophical currents running beneath its initially glib treatment of suicide is resolved with unforgettable intensity.
This is an imperfect film, and its marketing has done it a disservice – although it is an approach more likely to get bums on seats – but there is genuine profundity here, and the cast and crew have managed to demonstrate and idealise the inherent distinction between sentiment and sentimentality. Significantly, the use by the composer Trevor Jones of a theme from Allegri’s Miserere mei, Deus (‘Have mercy on me, O God’) is as true of Tommy’s heartbreaking submission to the inevitability of sin, and his immersion in it as a Catholic, as it is of the review by Mr. Morgan, to which this is a brief but heartfelt response.
Matthew Boyden © 2008
I’ve been reading this thread for a few days now, mainly out of interest as to how you will resolve the tension between the differing viewpoints.
But also because I do like your reviews Michael Morgan, and your opinion is generally on the ball and in keeping with what i like and don’t like, and influences what i go and see.
But this intrigued me, so, having read this thread, I hassled a media contact and managed to get a screening ticket. It was a bit of a build-up to be hoenst: half expecting myself to want to gouge my eyeballs out, and half expecting to be presented by the Best British drama since Four Weddings (though Andie McDowell irritates me beyond belief!)
So, when i DID go and see it i must say that….I actually quite liked it. I’m not kidding – whether it was the ‘Skinny underdog gets the girl’ plotline that tapped into my female soppy instincts, or the fact that i walked out of the film actually fancying MacKenzie Crook in it (again, i kid you not- i was as baffled as my friend who said exactly the same thing!), i found it a nice, simple, enjoyably easy-to-watch film.
Yes, you have the camp french stereotype, and yes there’s an amusing ‘mistaking gooey cream for other substances’ gag, but i think they were cute.
I dunno, i usually prefer more action-based films, or drier cut humour but, just as we all watch Dirty Dancing or Notting Hill on loop of a girly night, this film has that feel-good easy-viewing humour that appeals to me on that basis. It’s definitely a date or a ‘go with your friend’ movie, but no eyeball-gouging will be required.
Sorry Mr Morgan, it looks like for once we disagree.
Michael Morgan,
I had the misfortune of sitting through this on Monday. I should say from the outset that I’m just a cinema going punter who has never written a review in his life.
Here goes. Crook is difficult to like in this as both his physical features and stilted lines are a distraction. Whilst they worked for him in the office and the excellent Pirates trilogy he is miscast in this.
Aslef have every reason to be upset as the story is horrendous. What is funny about people losing their lives under a train? I have to admit this film made me want to jump under one in places, particularly the end. Shame you left halfway through it as I would love to know what you made of it. Frankly though…you didn’t miss much.
It was funny in parts, to be fair to it, and I have to confess that the jokes surrounding the sausage made me chuckle.
Arterton is wasted here, as is Emelda Staunton. What the Casting Director got right is assembling a cracking bunch of actors with comedic timing. But, alas, they are wasted on an average film which I doubt will recoup at the box office.
Kevin
Blimey. Someone who thought the sausage gags were funny thinks the film was shit. I shall buy a ticket tonight. It must be good.
Michael, you have to respond to the criticism of your site. And the other people who seem to have taken a beating. The other bloke’s review and his other postings sort of kick you and yours out the window. Maybe you should give him a job!
BB
Miss Monkey,
It’s great we disagree. You may have picked up from this and other posts that I welcome your input.
MM
Bruce,
I’ve responded to Matthew in a previous post along the lines of “I write what I like.”
He is more than welcome to post reviews alongside mine anytime.
I can’t comment as I haven’t actually seen it yet,however Kevin there is something very appealing about Mackenzie Crook!
This woman’s seen it and seems to think they really have got the wrong end of the stick
London-Underground blogspot
Think I will go and see it and let you know the verdict, anyone else have more info?
Michael,
I’ve been watching this with bated breath – I particularly like the “hemorrhoid bubbling at the stinking orifice of his own stunted pleasure”.
Funny as hell watching you get your ignorant ass kicked around the room by an intellect. I can entirely see why you have taken the cowardly route you have of not trying to justify your half-assed opinion in order to prolong your humiliation.
Funny, though, your initial review was so aggressive I thought that you’d have more stomach for a fight.
Loser.
Love Kate x
Michael,
Is that the best you can do? You have received a bloody nose and all you have to say is ‘I write what I like?’. So did Hitler.
BB
Kate and Bruce,
All this talk of fighting…can’t we just all get along!
Not after –
This is the most laziest,vacuous and talentless bit of filmmaking.
I saw the film a couple of weeks ago at a press screening (although not press, I have friends who are and this is a subject I take rather seriously for reasons best left undisclosed), and although I disagree with some points in Matthew Boydon’s review, it is on the whole a good assessment of the film.
That you left before the end really explains how you missed the point so badly. It’s a bit like watching The Usual Suspects until the last ten minutes and then complaining that it was only so-so.
I thought that the message of the film was profound. I agree that it was clunky in parts, and some of the gags didn’t work, but it had soul, and the ending was extroadinarily brave and compelling. You’d know that if you sat through it.
You should maybe buy a ticket when it comes out and watch it to its conclusion, and your opinion might change. Although from the reviews I’ve read (you know, proper reviewers), I’ve only spotted two or three that actually got the film, probably, like most misunderstood films, because it’s smart and trying to do something interesting. The film is getting shitty press for doing something very brave.
Your half assed review does not do it justice.
Michael,
Getting alongs fine…but you should really back up your slating of this film! What I have seen of the trailer it’s looks quite a funny and the relationship between Paul and Tommy is endearing.
Michael,
Bring on the revolution! It looks like the tide is turning against you. If you pick fights, mate, you have to expect to take the punches. I have no beef with you personally, but you were clearly out of order. You didn’t even sit through it! Jesus, what do you expect? I’m with Kate, and Matthew. Forget apologising to the film company – you should be saying sorry to your readers.
BB
Jessica,
Good on you! That’s the attitude – an open mind. Or just a mind! That will stand out on this site. Maybe you should be writing the reviews?
BB
Michael,
So what about it, mate? You got the balls to admit you were wrong?
BB
Michael,
I am enjoying this. Considering you seem to think the film’s noteworthy cos a black bloke gets killed in it, and that its homophobic without saying why, it’s nice to see your own prejudices get a hammering. Drop the race card and write something worth reading you useless sack of s**t.
Bruce,
Perhaps I’ve been a little vague so far. The film sucked and I stand by my review 100%
I hope that’s cleared that little misunderstanding up.
Brits suck at sport, wars and movies. Sure glad we ran you outta the U.S.
Michael,
You admit to not having seen it for Christ’s sake! Matthew’s right – where do you get off saying the film sucked when you didn’t even watch it? Kate reckons you’re ignorant. You are also one arrogant son of a bitch. Have some respect for yourself. There is no misunderstanding as to the value of your so called reviews. Loser indeed.
BB.
BB.
God, you’re such a cowardly loser.
Bruce, Kate et al,
The film wasn’t great. Let it go. I have seen it and wouldn’t view it again.
Kevin
Mr. Morgan
I am much amused to note that other people have taken against you and your comments. You won’t know this, but seventy years ago Bernard Shaw entered into a protracted and much celebrated debate with a critic called Ernest Newman. It is remembered because of the wit, intelligence and rage that each brought to their respective sides of the argument; the correspondence remains an ideal demonstration of the critic’s right to reply. I won’t suggest you read their letters – they appear in a book – but I urge you to reply to those among your readers who clearly feel very strongly about you and your failures as an aspiring film critic.
I have no interest in standing on the fingers of in-breds like Derek Johnson or the laughable ‘Stryker’, but you should consider defending your position.
If anything sucks, Mr. Morgan – and I would think you’d do quite nicely in that department – it is the cowardice to which you cling so palpably. Stand up and be a man. Your readers might be surprised to discover that you have lead in your pencil as well as your head.
Sincerely,
Matthew Boyden
Kevin,
Two things -
1. I disagree – I thought the film was very good.
2. Matter of principle now, I’m afraid. He wrote something that was unsupported by reason, and is now absent of accountability.
Love Kate x
Ha ha ha ha. I am beginning to really like you Matthew. Also, Kevin, you have missed the point: this isn’t about the film. It’s about wankers banging on about shit they’ve not even seen.
Dear Ian
My pleasure.
Best,
Matthew
This is so much more fun than work.
Kate,
@ Kate. Somethin’ we agree on then!
Kevin,
What didn’t you like about the film? I’m curious to know, as long as it’s reasoned I won’t jump down your throat, I promise!
Love Kate x
All Quiet on the Western Front then?
Come on Michael, pull your thumb out your arse. You can’t expect to run a web-site without defending its content. Give Matthew some of his own medicine!
I would love to write the review Bruce…move over Michael!
Jessica,
Michael who?
BB
Bruce – Michael Morgan, the guy who’s doing the website. Duh.
That is funny as fuck…
Was I the only person paying attention to the semen joke!
Before he pulled – yay freedom of speech.
Morgan, you really are a fucking coward.
Love Kate x
Did anyone have any for him in the first place?
Kate,
Matthew Boyden, Bruce Barnard and Ian Jacobs are one in the same. You’ve been conned I’m afraid if you thought you were speaking with several people.
Just like Three and Out that’s pretty darn shabby!
Really? How do you know?
I think that their (his) points still stand, though. You only saw half the film but offered a full review – shabby is certainly the word.
Also – the semen line was quality – how come you pulled it?
Love Kate x
Kate,
My ISP thought my site was under a spam attack and started to pull comments until it was revealed that they had come from the same computer…
Matthew, if that is his / her real name, is not very bright. I’ll have the real name in about an hour so stay tuned it could get pretty interesting!
Why, are you going to hunt him/them down?
Matthew Boyden,
What a knob head. He is obviously connected with this terrible film. Doesn’t take a genius to work it out.
does this mean that fun’s over?
oh.
Dear all
Not to worry. In 3 months you’ll be able to buy the film for 50p at HMV.