TAG. Ridiculous Premise and Likable Characters

Somewhere in America, there once lived a tight-knit group of middle-aged friends. The men had known each other since childhood, and although each of them eventually built his own life, career, and family — sometimes in entirely different states — their bond never suffered because of it. That, unfortunately, is a rather rare phenomenon and something worth aspiring to. The men seemed well aware of that fact and found themselves an unusual hobby to keep their group intact. Once a year, they devoted an entire month to a game of tag. For over four weeks, they hunted one another down, often resorting to completely absurd tricks and elaborate schemes.

Their sincere commitment to what appeared to be a trivial, childish game caught the attention of The Wall Street Journal, whose article popularized the story enough for it to inspire a thoroughly entertaining comedy.

The protagonists of Tag were instantly likable from the opening minutes, in which Hogan (Ed Helms) took a job as a janitor at his friend’s company just to tag him during an interview with a journalist. One might have assumed that an image-conscious success story like Bob (Jon Hamm) would never participate in the game in the middle of such a meeting, but it quickly became clear that, during the season, nothing mattered more than tag. Bob attempted to smash through a glass partition with a chair and failed miserably, which led into another pursuit and another character introduction. Randy (Jake Johnson) was a stereotypical underachiever who would not get out of bed without first lighting up a joint, yet when tag was at stake, he transformed into an athlete.

After an exhausting, slapstick-heavy chase, the group expanded to include the neurotic Kevin (Hannibal Buress), and an ambitious goal emerged: catching the only friend who had never been tagged. Jerry (Jeremy Renner) was the undisputed champion of the game and quite possibly a superhero (at least we knew what Hawkeye had been up to between Avengers missions). Any attempt to ambush or surprise him at the least expected moment had always ended in failure, but this time there seemed to be a genuine chance at success. Jerry was getting married just before the end of the month, and since weddings tend to be rather distracting affairs, the group believed this would finally be their opportunity.

There was no denying that this was an utterly ridiculous premise, but that was also the nature of the titular game, and the film made excellent use of the comedic potential of an adult version of it. The characters’ inventiveness and determination appeared boundless, and the successive chases and scuffles were both surprising and hilarious.

A nighttime infiltration of Jerry’s house evoked the atmosphere of a slasher, while a forest pursuit quickly lost its initial innocence — even the lighting shifted — and began to resemble scenes from Predator, building tension more effectively than Shane Black managed in the most recent sequel. Anyone who had seen Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes would immediately recognize the parody of its fight scenes in the confrontations with Jerry.

There were also echoes of the Bourne franchise, which made perfect sense given that Jeremy Renner had appeared in one of its installments.Although this playful genre pastiche carried the greatest comedic weight, the banter-driven gags (including a rivalry over a woman) and the old-school slapstick — thankfully not overused — also worked quite well. Fans of Hamm and Renner had every reason to be delighted, as both actors clearly enjoyed poking fun at their established screen personas. The rest of the cast was less surprising but still formed a colorful mix of personalities. Still, a few scenes involving supporting characters could probably have been trimmed or written better — Rashida Jones and Isla Fisher are talented actresses who deserved more to do than the film ultimately gave them.

Fisher, in particular, had a flamboyant role that left me with mixed feelings; for every successful gag involving her character, there seemed to be one that fell flat. At times, a similar lack of finesse led to an odd tonal shift, with the story taking on slightly more weight than it perhaps should have.

That heavier note occasionally struck the right chord, especially in the touching finale. The film’s message was universal and endearing, though it might have benefited from being left a bit more understated. Long-lasting friendship is something worth fighting for and nurturing. It is hard to imagine more valuable or authentic human connections, and amid the chaos of life’s changes, it is comforting to have something steady and certain. Of course, as the years pass, one cannot expect to share as much with old friends as before — which is precisely why it is worth finding something that keeps the group together, even if it is nothing more than a childish game of tag.