The Trip to Italy (2014) Reviews

• Art House film gone wrong

  dugaldallen2014-06-29

  Truthfully, I walked into the theatre expecting some fun based upon such a high IMDb review. The premise of two respected comedians doing a semi- scripted trip around a set of Italian restaurants had some good potential. However, it became quickly clear that this was a very self-indulgent "selfie". Apparently more so for Brydon, whose non-stop impressions became tiresome about half way through the movie. There certainly were a consistent run of chuckles, but there were no really funny moments. Unless you're a film buff, dozens of vague (and potentially funny) references would be lost upon the audience. The college-level humour was lost on much of the audience and many walked out without that "just saw a fun movie" look on their faces. The scenes involving the kitchens and restaurants were too brief and didn't really set any sense of place or any real love of the food being served. There was no "love" in the way the food was presented and no appreciation of the food by the characters. The premise was that one of them is writing an article about travelling to six restaurants, no? There was no real discovery of the two stories of Brydon's unhappy marital situation or Coogan's desire to be closer to his son. We could have added some discussion between the men about their respective challenges. Instead, all we got was improvised conversation between two guys that would have normal customers asking the staff to shut them up. The only tender moments were left to the final 30 seconds of each of the six days. Was the director trying to accomplish too much or was there a lack of skill presenting the parallel stories? I don't know. The scenery and the food stole this otherwise disappointing show. We walked out of there thinking of our next menu. What really hit my partner and I about the film was the boredom at the end of each day as each character met with Brydon's dismissive wife too busy with her work and being a single mum at home with a young child or Coogan just going to sleep, bored and listening to his ipad playing music. Seriously, if the actors are that bored, then how can we be entertained?

• Self indulgent nonsense

  housemartins2014-06-02

  Apart from the beautiful scenery, and a couple of chuckles, this was boring. Normally I enjoy these guys, but this just doesn't work. Watching two mates eating, and doing impressions every five minutes, with an attempt at being funny thrown in, was embarrassing. I was hoping for more views of an amazing journey, but was left feeling short changed in that department. Whilst both Rob and Steve are very clever in their own right, this union seemed more of a challenge to outdo each other. I thought this would be more of a documentary type of movie, but sadly I was mistaken. If you're die hard fans of the duo, I guess this is for you.

• Tedious ego-trip

  Clive_barons2014-09-14

  I was so disappointed as I have liked Steve Cougan's previous work. The movie tried to give the impression that the dialogue between Cougan and Brydon was spontaneous but came over as completely premeditated and precisely scripted so it lost all credibility. The dialogue -- especially the very good impressions by Brydon -- we so overdone and self serving they became tedious and we both were looking at our watches after 40 minutes. I hardly laughed at this comedy; the shots of the food and scenery were stunning but were too fleeting to add value to the plot. Too many in-jokes and poetry/movie-aficionado references only heightened the impression that the movie is a self- serving Ego-trip.

• While Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon are fun and draw some solid laughs from the limitations of the premise, this particular trip is still baggy and self-indulgent

  Likes_Ninjas902014-05-23

  The best word to describe Michael Winterbottom's sequel to The Trip is patchy. There are some enjoyable laughs and jokes by the film's dual leads Rob Brydon and Steve Coogan, playing fictional versions of themselves again, but the comedy doesn't strike as frequently. Both films were originally a television series edited down into the film format. In the prequel the duo was assigned to travel around Britain to review several restaurants. They spent more time outdoing each other with their duel impersonations of celebrities like Michael Caine than paying attention to the food. They were rude, egotistical and self- absorbed and that's why it was so hysterical. Now they've been asked to do a second round of restaurants in Italy. Like so many sequels, this entry doesn't have the element of surprise but that was expected. The weakest aspect here is the thinness of the material. By attempting to deepen the dialogue and the characters it overstays its welcome. There isn't enough narrative to stop the film from running out of steam and earlier than expected. Who could argue with staying too long in Italy though? The new setting is one of the stars because this feature looks stunning. The beauty of Italy, including Liguria, Tuscany, Rome, Amalfi and Caprio, are sumptuously captured by cinematographer James Clarke. The overhead shots and wide angles are used very effectively in capturing images like the boats on the water or even the cities in the back of the frame as the camera moves away in an unbroken tracking shot. It is an incredible looking film but one must ask what Winterbottom's incentive was in making another entry. He is one of the most diverse filmmakers in the world and he doesn't make the same film twice. This isn't a radical departure from the structure of the previous entry and some of the thematic material is recycled from other films like The Look of Love, which also starred Steve Coogan as a neglectful father. At least both of the actors are very articulate with their improvisation. There is more discourse about the topics like age and death. They also frequently refer to poets like Lord Byron and pop staples like Roman Holiday. The thematic and ironic aim is that as they are so busy discussing death they are unaware of how much time they are wasting. The film's comedic flaw is in it attempts to soften Coogan's character. In the first film he was jealous, needy and unfaithful. Now the men have reversed roles. As he is growing older he wants to spend more time with his son, which adds a dose of sentimentality. Steve is also more reactionary to Brydon, who dominates most of the jokes and becomes the shallower of the two men as he cheats on his wife. It leaves the comedy feeling imbalanced and lopsided. Was anyone planning on seeing this really hoping for Steve Coogan to become a nicer guy? Coogan is a brilliant comedian and has made an art form out of playing egotistical jerks, like his signature character Alan Partridge. I wonder if the change in his character here though is reflecting the maturity of his other work and attempts to add more dimensions to his repertoire. On top of his excellent performance in The Look of Love as Charles Raymond, he was also well received as both the writer and actor in Philomena. If he is growing out of films like this it will dampen anyone's hopes for a third entry. That isn't a bad thing. As it's said in a promising early scene, a second album is never as good as the first one. While Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon are fun and draw some solid laughs from the limitations of the premise, this particular trip is still baggy and self-indulgent.

• Beavis & Butthead for the BBC set

  witness-72014-07-27

  As with their first "The Trip", I've had ambivalent feelings about these Coogan/Brydon travel/food/comedy serials. This new series follows much of the first. If you loved the first, that's good news. But the program is a mixed bag to where you really have to call out the good and the bad. First, the good. Coogan and Brydon have a great personal chemistry that comes off in the series as something unscripted. The locations are gorgeous, and the soundtrack adds to the grandeur of place. The series is also somewhat groundbreaking in introducing a genre of travel-food- comedy, which has its merits. The restaurants featured in the series are researched and quite extraordinary. And the literary trail of the likes of Byron and Shelley add a cultural relevance to the program where, I would have to say, I would enjoy partaking in such a Magical Mystery Tour myself. Next, the bad. If you removed the impersonations of Michael Caine, Sean Connery, etc., 70% of the program would be on the cutting room floor. There are few themes of humor in the program, and they are mercilessly beaten to an absolute pulp. Can you imagine spending a week-long vacation in Italy with a friend who basically ran the same gag everywhere you went? This makes the program the Beavis & Butthead of the BBC set. If the gag gets old or doesn't work for you, the show has little else to offer you besides a few good visual scenes with the sound turned off. Like the Magical Mystery Tour, the show's arc comes off as rather aimless and without a real destination. If the joy is in the travel, and some of it is, that would be one thing. But if there's no joy in bad impersonation banter of actors from years gone by, there's too much to redeem itself. As a whole, the program offers glimpses of creative ideas and possibilities while failing to execute to their potential. Injecting an actual scriptwriter might have seemed anathema to the program's vision and goals, but there are few programs I've seen this year that so sorely could have improved with just one decent writer.