Grimsby

Sacha Baron Cohen once again boldly pushes the boundaries of film humor and tests what else the audience can endure. I had a really good time, although I admit that for many people, it will be hard to tolerate this film. For some it may be Comedy of the Year, for others embarrassing and disgusting hogwash. I recommend the film especially if you have a sense for black, vulgar and incorrect humor, you often go to the cinema, you've seen and can endure a lot of stuff, you find most comedies to be not very good or harsh enough, and you liked Cohen's previous films. The Cohen - Strong brotherly duo works great. (10.03.2016)

I would be interested in knowing if Penélope Cruz knew when she signed on to this project that she would appear in the same film as Mark Strong’s testicles, Gabourey Sidibe’s crotch and a hectolitre of elephant ejaculate. The film succeeds in presenting all of the above without coming across as a random sequence of gags (though it’s not far from it) and without the punchline (always) consisting in the distastefulness or imbecility of the given joke. With his guileless rejection of what is proper in a civilised society, Cohen’s Nobby, proudly claiming to be English scum, fulfils a purpose similar to that of the earlier Ali G and Borat – he shows the pretence in which all intellectuals, petty bourgeois and snobs live, as they reveal their true face and true intentions when confronted with a man whom they despise too much to take seriously (among other things, this year’s American presidential election showed us what that can lead to). The other characters are (unintentionally) led to being exposed by Nobby, and the viewer is then (intentionally) led by the redneck jokes, which are drawn out to the point of absurdity. Sure, The Brothers Grimsby is very much a hit-or-miss affair, the editing could have been less frantic and the seriously depicted flashbacks (and the whole storyline about the importance of family) disrupt the pace and tone of the narrative, but I still found it funnier and more subversive than most mainstream comedies. The fourth star is for giving Donald Trump AIDS. 70%. (21.11.2016)

Some really juicy and delicious jokes (Radcliffe and Trump, "Do you have to shoot at everything?!") side by side with Mr. Cohen's overt sexual deviance and all manner of anal exploitation, which, while it makes you laugh heartily now and then, is life-threatening to eat with the film, watch it after a romantic dinner, and sometimes just watch it – things have been going downhill with Cohen and his originality since Borat, straight towards constantly surpassing the extremes of imaginary comedic (dis)taste, but on the other hand, after the terrible Bruno, Sacha manages to produce a story that holds together and, by engaging A-list actors, proves that the film world simply can’t find a more entertaining and flashy presentation of boorishness and imbecility anywhere else than his. A big thumbs up to Mark Strong, who also knows how to make a proper joke out of himself and obviously enjoyed this unprecedented ass-riding as much as I did for the most part. 65% (27.06.2016)

Sometimes good, but sometimes intentionally brutally disgusting. So disgusting, in fact, that it goes beyond disgust. And I deliberately played this comedy right after Animal with Belmondo to realize what kind of comedies were made back then and what kind of comedies are made today. And I have to admit that I much prefer the kind of comedies they madeback then. Now they only seem to be fighting for their moment in the sun by trying to fit as many disgusting things as possible on an eight-millimeter film. (11.07.2016)

Sacha Baron Cohen goes a little farther (or, ahem, deeper) with each film, and this time it was a little too far (deep) for my tastes in places. But what can I say, I had more fun than with Bruno and a bit more than with The Dictator, and I think that once in a while a comedy like this doesn't hurt either. My admiration goes to Mark Strong, who went all in. (04.02.2020)