I think that as an American, we view movies differently. We are trained to view movies, with normal three act structures, expect there to be high stakes, and active antagonists. So, when a movie comes along and flat out breaks every rule in the book, it looks a bit weird to us. Maybe because this is such a British film, I simply don’t get it. I do like movies that are not afraid to try new things and go into existentialism, I love everything Charlie Kauffman has done, and his films certainly break every rule. I even loved Southland Tales, which is a huge mess of a film and quite despised from most people, but I feel I at least got most of it and I loved the humor. So, I’m a bit at a loss as to why I simply got nothing out of A Cock and Bull Story. I like to think I can get British humor, some of my favorite films are British, (Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels) I get the humor of Monty Python and that is British. With this, I did not understand hardly any of A Cock and Bull Story.

The plot so to speak is a bit out there. In fact, I’m not sure there was a plot. Here’s what I got out of it, Steve Coogan, who is basically playing himself, acts out a novel that has been considered “unfilmable”. He acts out the main character Tristan Shandy as he details his birth and how he got his name. Then the film goes into complete reality as we watch Steve Coogan negotiate with his agent various scripts, and his relationship with his wife.

I can’t really do much more description then that, for me to describe a plot, there would have to be one. Most of the film is just long conversations between the actors, who are basically playing themselves. They talk about battle scenes and love scenes and some other stuff. I don’t know, if I wanted to watch people talk, I would hang out with some friends. I don’t think a movie should spend so much time on this. If you do want to watch dialogue that doesn’t end, I think a Tarantino film does it much better. But maybe that was the point of the film, and if it was I completely missed it. But then again, I’m convinced I missed every point the movie was trying to make.

Steve Coogan is quit talented. He is better known back in Britain, but he gets work in the States. Most people could probably recognize him from Tropic Thunder, but his real talent is best seen in Hamlet 2, where he takes his complex role and turns it into something extraordinary. Anyways, he does a good job here as far as I can tell. I am certain a lot of this was improvised, and for that I think he did a good job. It is nice seeing Shirley Henderson in a role, and she gets a decent amount of screen time. I cannot really judge her performance, because as far as I can tell, she did fine, for what the film was going for. Prominent actors/actresses show up. Kelly McDonald is there, so is Naomi Harris, and Gilliam Anderson. They did fine for what the film was going for, I really cannot criticize them since I am not sure what they were supposed to achomplish.

Apparently this was based on a novel from the 18th century. I haven’t read it, but it is supposed to be post-modern and existentialist, which makes perfect sense. I have no idea how loyal the movie was, but it’s probably not too far off. I really wanted someone to explain to me what exactly the film was about, since I had no idea. Unfortunately the DVD special features are no help, and I have no idea if the interviews and commentary has them staying in character or if they are actually serious. Either way, it did not really help me.  Another thing I had no idea what the movie was trying to do was the tone. It is labeled as a Comedy and it did contain a light feel. But there were not any jokes, and I could not find anything that funny about the movie, other than a few lines from Coogan. It seemed like it was serious at points and then comedy as it descended into complete absurdity. There is a dream sequence in the film, and as far as I am concerned, it could have been part of the movie and not a dreams sequence and I would have gone along with it no questions asked.

I think I feel justified in calling this film a bit of a mess. It is not a wonderful mess like some movies (Southland Tales) but I cannot say it is a horrible mess. It just never feels like it ever comes together and works as a movie. I did enjoy some parts, the first ten-fifteen minutes were pretty funny, and it actually felt like a movie. It lost me after that, as it took a much different approach as it went full on surrealistic. Maybe the best way to describe this would be to imagine a European version of David Lynch or Charlie Kauffman, except it is comedy and British. But maybe there is no accurate way to describe this movie, and perhaps that is its beauty. Maybe someone can describe this movie to me someday; I completely missed what it was going for. I have no idea how to rate this, so I will give it 3 stars. I do recommend seeing this as it is it is defiantly something different and I am sure that there are people who will get this and appreciate it. I like the effort; frankly America is terrible at just incredibly weird films that do not conform to any sort of structure or guidelines. For whatever reason, this just could not resonate with me, I have not seen anything quite like it, and so it is worth checking out. I just do not get the satire or whatever they were going for.

3 stars
Cast
Steve Coogan… Tristan Shandy
Shirley Henderson… Susannah

Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: Good for Groups
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older