CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
5.7/10
56 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Un funeral da paso a una serie de rencillas familiares, secretos ocultos y cuerpos extraviados.Un funeral da paso a una serie de rencillas familiares, secretos ocultos y cuerpos extraviados.Un funeral da paso a una serie de rencillas familiares, secretos ocultos y cuerpos extraviados.
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Elenco
- Premios
- 6 nominaciones en total
Zoe Saldaña
- Elaine
- (as Zoë Saldaña)
- Dirección
- Guionista
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
'Unnecessary' is probably the best single word description of Neil LaBute's "Death at a Funeral." I mean, there's really no precedent for the release of a same-language remake a paltry two and a half years after its original, and yet the guest list arrives for this new "Funeral" with almost as fast a turnaround as a Hollywood sequel. Hell, Chris Nolan hibernated on his second "Batman" film longer.
Nevertheless, the reality is that the decidedly Afro-American-friendly version of the dysfunctional family comedy (notable only because it really is the later film's sole distinguishing feature), is now in theaters, leaving anyone who remembers the Frank Oz original to ponder why.
LaBute and star Chris Rock, who also served as a producer on the film, cheekily 'adapt' U.K. writer Dean Craig's screenplay by peppering it with hip-pop pop-culture nods to Usher and R. Kelly, and leaving the rest, in essence, unchanged. On one hand, I appreciate the sentiment in that it doesn't presume to outdo its progenitor, but that's its problem as a standalone piece: it's either identical or inferior in every conceivable way. As such, the majority of its first-time audience will probably appreciate the comedic build-up having not been spoiled on the gags, and that's fine for right now, but it poses a potential dilemma, say, ten years down the road.
When film buffs and historians look back on "Death at a Funeral" (which they honestly have little reason to), the choice between the two versions will be obvious. Plus, they'll have no idea who "Usher" is.
Likewise, even today I'd recommend a rental of the 2007 film over a ticket to its 2010 counterpart, because, well, the original is the original, and for all its faithfulness, the remake actually accentuates what's lost in translation. The pop-culture one-liners clash with the characters on the page, and leave them feeling half-formed and sloppy on the screen—Are we watching Chris Rock do what makes Chris Rock hilarious, or are we seeing him play a repressed, introverted protagonist? The answer, messily, is both.
On that level, there's a creative integrity to the original performances that is impossible in LaBute's version. Martin Lawrence, Danny Glover, Tracey Morgan, Zoe Saldana, Peter Dinklage, Luke Wilson, and others comprise an undeniably talented cast that does an admirable job performing characters that were written as upper-crust Englishmen, but watching Rock sulk his way through the film makes it abundantly clear that they're not being themselves.
There's also the not-so-insignificant matter of LaBute's bland artisanship. In the past, he's been responsible for equally lifeless big-screen adaptations of his own stage plays, and a spectacularly poorly-received remake of "The Wicker Man"—It begs the question, why was he asked and trusted to shepherd this project? There's no single performance in the film that feels particularly informed by his hand, and LaBute fails to bring a single funny idea to the table. In adhering so rigidly to "Funeral" prime, his remake is marked by an absence of directorial and comedic vision.
I have no qualms with anyone who enjoyed "Death at a Funeral" for the first time via the LaBute/Rock version. A lot of what made the British comedy memorable has survived, and even with a jaded precognition of the gags, I mined a couple laughs. However, the fatal flaw of the 2010 adaptation is that the 2007 version exists. It's not like it's antiquated or anything; it's three years old.
Anyone with an open mind can still appreciate the original "Death at a Funeral," and its immediate availability for less than the cost of a night at the movies makes the 2010 remake quintessentially one thing—Unnecessary.
Nevertheless, the reality is that the decidedly Afro-American-friendly version of the dysfunctional family comedy (notable only because it really is the later film's sole distinguishing feature), is now in theaters, leaving anyone who remembers the Frank Oz original to ponder why.
LaBute and star Chris Rock, who also served as a producer on the film, cheekily 'adapt' U.K. writer Dean Craig's screenplay by peppering it with hip-pop pop-culture nods to Usher and R. Kelly, and leaving the rest, in essence, unchanged. On one hand, I appreciate the sentiment in that it doesn't presume to outdo its progenitor, but that's its problem as a standalone piece: it's either identical or inferior in every conceivable way. As such, the majority of its first-time audience will probably appreciate the comedic build-up having not been spoiled on the gags, and that's fine for right now, but it poses a potential dilemma, say, ten years down the road.
When film buffs and historians look back on "Death at a Funeral" (which they honestly have little reason to), the choice between the two versions will be obvious. Plus, they'll have no idea who "Usher" is.
Likewise, even today I'd recommend a rental of the 2007 film over a ticket to its 2010 counterpart, because, well, the original is the original, and for all its faithfulness, the remake actually accentuates what's lost in translation. The pop-culture one-liners clash with the characters on the page, and leave them feeling half-formed and sloppy on the screen—Are we watching Chris Rock do what makes Chris Rock hilarious, or are we seeing him play a repressed, introverted protagonist? The answer, messily, is both.
On that level, there's a creative integrity to the original performances that is impossible in LaBute's version. Martin Lawrence, Danny Glover, Tracey Morgan, Zoe Saldana, Peter Dinklage, Luke Wilson, and others comprise an undeniably talented cast that does an admirable job performing characters that were written as upper-crust Englishmen, but watching Rock sulk his way through the film makes it abundantly clear that they're not being themselves.
There's also the not-so-insignificant matter of LaBute's bland artisanship. In the past, he's been responsible for equally lifeless big-screen adaptations of his own stage plays, and a spectacularly poorly-received remake of "The Wicker Man"—It begs the question, why was he asked and trusted to shepherd this project? There's no single performance in the film that feels particularly informed by his hand, and LaBute fails to bring a single funny idea to the table. In adhering so rigidly to "Funeral" prime, his remake is marked by an absence of directorial and comedic vision.
I have no qualms with anyone who enjoyed "Death at a Funeral" for the first time via the LaBute/Rock version. A lot of what made the British comedy memorable has survived, and even with a jaded precognition of the gags, I mined a couple laughs. However, the fatal flaw of the 2010 adaptation is that the 2007 version exists. It's not like it's antiquated or anything; it's three years old.
Anyone with an open mind can still appreciate the original "Death at a Funeral," and its immediate availability for less than the cost of a night at the movies makes the 2010 remake quintessentially one thing—Unnecessary.
I watched the original Death at a Funeral when it first came out and thoroughly enjoyed it, however this remake, though possessing arguably greater star power fails to live up to it's predecessor. in my opinion, it misses the mark completely, and was absolutely unnecessary. I know everyone has different taste, but this was just bad. Bad Bad Bad. It is difficult to give an unbiased review seeing as how I have watched the original, but this to me has just highlights how substandard this film is. It is as if Hollywood was trying to prove a point, but failed miserably. I have watched the original four times and still am able to laugh throughout. This was just terrible. This brings me to the question "why?" Who felt that this was necessary? I was gravely disappointed with this film and I think an apology is due to it's original writer and cast members for this atrocious remake!!.
Death At A Funeral is easily one of the funniest films I've seen in months. Those looking for something hilarious should definitely see it. It's a simple film; just a series of events and misunderstandings at a funeral. All these lead to real chaos, however. The physical and even the spoken humour is well executed. The whole cast deliver solid performances. The script is surprisingly good for a film like this. Add to this a fitting ending, and you've got one satisfying comedy. There's some gross humour, but unlike recent gross-out comedies the stuff here actually works and doesn't feel unpleasant. In addition, most gags contribute to later events in the story. Death At A Funeral is a solid Hollywood product with a star cast that manages to make every star worthwhile. It doesn't break any new ground, but it's truly hilarious.
Alright, well I haven't seen the 2007 version, so I can't really compared this remake with that movie. So I will be making my review here solely on the 2010 version.
I found this odd comedy to be delightfully screwed up and so far out there, that it was well worth it. Given, there weren't that many moments where I was laying flat laughing, but there were some moments in the movie that were funny and cool.
Now, as for the acting, well I found all cast actors and actresses to be good in their given roles and they did well with the material they had. And having James Marsden and Luke Wilson in the roles as the two white people worked quite well, and they brought some fun to the movie. And I also think the dialogue was nice. And also Danny Glover in the role of that uncle in the wheelchair, that was just so cool. He truly is a nice actor.
I would have to say that, for me at least, this is the type of comedy that is watched once, then probably never again. It just didn't stand out that much so that it had repeated watch value.
If you like off-comedies and got a twisted sense of humor, then this movie would be something for you. I found it to be enjoyable enough, especially because it was amazing how the funeral turned out with all the weird things happening.
There are some pretty nice twists to the story throughout the movie, and if you are in for an evening of some comedy, then "Death at a Funeral" might be a good suggestion.
I found this odd comedy to be delightfully screwed up and so far out there, that it was well worth it. Given, there weren't that many moments where I was laying flat laughing, but there were some moments in the movie that were funny and cool.
Now, as for the acting, well I found all cast actors and actresses to be good in their given roles and they did well with the material they had. And having James Marsden and Luke Wilson in the roles as the two white people worked quite well, and they brought some fun to the movie. And I also think the dialogue was nice. And also Danny Glover in the role of that uncle in the wheelchair, that was just so cool. He truly is a nice actor.
I would have to say that, for me at least, this is the type of comedy that is watched once, then probably never again. It just didn't stand out that much so that it had repeated watch value.
If you like off-comedies and got a twisted sense of humor, then this movie would be something for you. I found it to be enjoyable enough, especially because it was amazing how the funeral turned out with all the weird things happening.
There are some pretty nice twists to the story throughout the movie, and if you are in for an evening of some comedy, then "Death at a Funeral" might be a good suggestion.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaIn the original Death at a Funeral (2007) screenplay, the character that Peter Dinklage ended up playing (named Peter) was of average height, and not written as an achondroplastic dwarf. The character was changed for him after he auditioned and was cast. He then became the only actor to reprise his role (with the name of Frank) in this remake.
- ErroresJeff says he's a pharmacology student. His father Duncan asks him how things are going at Pepperdine. Per their own website, Pepperdine has no pharmacology program. He is using term "pharmacology student" as a euphemism for "drug dealer."
- Bandas sonorasLife
Written by Sly Stone (as Sylvester Stewart)
Performed by Sly and the Family Stone (as Sly & The Family Stone)
Courtesy of Epic Records
By Arrangement with Sony Music Entertainment
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Death at a Funeral?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Cái Chết Trong Đám Tang
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 21,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 42,739,347
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 16,217,540
- 18 abr 2010
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 49,050,886
- Tiempo de ejecución
- 1h 32min(92 min)
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta